Agenda - 11/13/2001
AGENDA
WOODBURN CITY COUNCIL
NOVEMBERl~2fK)1-7:fK)P.M
270 Montgomery Street"'''' Woodh~ Oregon
1. CALL TO ORDER AND FLAG SALUTE
2. ROLL CALL
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND APPOINTMENTS
Announcements:
A. Thanksgiving Holiday closures: City Hall will be closed
November 22 and 23, 2001. However, the Library and Aquatic
Center will only be closed on November 22 and reopen on Friday,
November 23.
B. Public Hearing: November 26, 2001 - 7:00 p.m. - Cable Television
Franchise.
C. Public Hearing: November 26, 2001 - 7:00 p.m. - Community
Development Block Grant.
Appointments: - None
4. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS
A. Human Rights Commission Award: Elida Sifuentez.
5. COMMITTEE REPORTS
A. Chamber of Commerce.
B. Woodburn Downtown Association.
6. COMMUNICATIONS
A. Letter dated October 25, 2001 from Marion County Board of
Commissioners .............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6A
7. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC (This allows the public to introduce items for
Council consideration not already scheduled on the agenda.)
8. CONSENT AGENDA - Items listed on the consent agenda are considered routine
and may be enacted by one motion. Any item may be removed for discussion at
the request of a Council member.
A. Woodburn City Council minutes of October 22, 2001 regular
meeting and October 15, 2001 workshop meeting .................... 8A
Recommended action: Approve the Woodburn City Council minutes
of October 22,2001 regular meeting and October 15,2001 workshop
meeting.
Page 1 - Woodburn City Council Agenda of November 13,2001.
B. Woodburn Planning Commission minutes of October 11,2001 ......... 8B
Recommended action: Accept the Woodburn Planning Commission
minutes of October 11,2001.
C. Community Center Planning Committee minutes of October 25, 2001 ... 8C
Recommended action: Accept the Community Center Planning
Committee minutes of October 25,2001.
D. Claims for the month of October 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8D
Recommended action: Approve the claims for the month of October 2001.
E. Arsenic limit for drinking water report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8E
Recommended action: Receive the report.
F. Police Department Activity Report for August and September 2001 . . . .. 8F
Recommended action: Receive the report.
G. Building Activity Report for October 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8G
Recommended action: Receive the report.
H. Rainier Road traffic analysis and planned action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8H
Recommended action: Accept the traffic analysis and planned action..
9. TABLED BUSINESS
10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Review of Planning Commission decision on Site Plan Review
Modification No. 01-10 (Woodburn Company Stores) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. lOA
Recommended action: Conduct public hearing, receive public comment
and instruct staff to prepare an ordinance reflecting Council's decision.
B. Vacation of public easements in conjunction with the Wal-Mart
expanSIon .................................................... lOB
Recommended Action: Conduct public hearing, receive public comment
and instruct staff to prepare an ordinance reflecting Council's decision.
11. GENERAL BUSINESS
A. Council Bill No. 2356 - Resolution entering into an intergovernmental
agreement with Marion County for plumbing and electrical program
support ...................................................... I1A
Recommended action: Adopt the ordinance
B. Council Bill No. 2357 - Ordinance affirming the Woodburn Planning
Commission's denial of Subdivision 01-01 and Variance 01-06 to sub-
divide two residential parcels, the combined size of which is 1.91 acres,
into five lots located on the south side ofE. Hardcastle Ave. between Hwy
99E and the easterly city limit ................................... llB
Recommended action: Adopt the ordinance.
Page 2 - Woodburn City Council Agenda of November 13,2001.
C. Authorization for transit bus purchase ............................ 11 C
Recommended action: Authorize utilization of an existing public
agency contract with Basin Transit Service for the purchase of a
transit bus from Schetky Northwest Sales for $138,125.00.
D. Request from Woodburn Company Stores for sound amplification
permit on Sunday, November 18, 2001 from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m ..... 11D
Recommended action: Approve a sound amplification per for Woodburn
Company Stores on Sunday, November 18, 2001 from 5:00 p.m.
to 6:00 p.m.
E. Liquor license application: Salvador's Bakery III ................... 11E
Recommended action: Approve a Limited On-Premise liquor license
for Salvador's Bakery IlL
F. Council Bill No. 2358 - Ordinance relating to reapportionment of ward
boundaries, repealing Ordinance 2075 ............................ 11F
Recommended action: Adopt the ordinance.
12. PUBLIC COMMENT
13. NEW BUSINESS
14. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS - These are Planning Commission actions
that may be called up by the City Council.
A. Approval of Variance 01-11 to increase the size of an existing free-
standing sign for an additional sign panel and to add a wall sign for
Silverton Hospital Urgent Care Center, 1014 Newberg Hwy .......... 14A
B. Approval of Partition 01-04, to partition a 148.76 acre lot into 2 parcels
located west of Harvard Drive and south of Evergreen Road ......... 14B
C. Approval of Partition 01-05 to partition a 0.91 acre property into
2 lots located along Stark Street and "A" Street. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14C
15. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
A. Financial System Purchase ...................................... 15A
16. MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS
17. EXECUTIVE SESSION
(A) To consult with counsel concerning the legal rights and duties of a public body
with regard to current litigation or litigation likely to be filed pursuant to ORS
192.660 (1)(h).
(B) To consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection pursuant to
ORS 192.660 (1)(1).
18. ADJOURNMENT
Page 3 - Woodburn City Council Agenda of November 13,2001.
(503) 588-5212
(503) 588-5237 - FAX
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
Randall Franke
Patti Milne
Mike Ryan
COUNTY
ADMINISTRATOR
Melinda Carlton
Marion County
OREGON
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
6A
October 25,2001
The Marion County Board of Commissioners is seeking public comment on
whether the county should consider changes in organization, such as becoming a
home rule county instead of a general law county as it is now.
Enclosed is an information packet that can be duplicated for interested members of
the public.
This information is also available on the Internet at co.marion.or.us/homerule.htm,
and packets can be mailed on request. Call the Board of Commissioners at (503)
588-5212 or e-mail commissioners@open.org for packets or questions.
Public hearings will be held at 10 a.m. Wednesday, October 31, and at 5:30 p.m.
Monday, November 19, to gather opinions and suggestions. Both will be held in
the Senator Hearing Room on the first floor of Courthouse Square, 555 Court
Street NE, Salem.
Public comment may be submitted at the hearings or in writing in person, by mail
or bye-mail.
555 Court 51. NE, Room 2171B · P.O. Box 14500 . Salem, Oregon 97309-5036 · commissioners@open.org
Home Rule Charter
Information Packet
Public Hearing Dates
Wednesday, October 31,2001 @ 10:00 a.m.
Monday, November 19, 2001 @ 5:30 p.m.
Public Hearing Location
Courthouse Square
Senator Hearing Room
555 Court Street NE
Salem, OR 97309
Information Provided by the Marion County Board of Commissioners
October 25, 2001
r
COUNTY GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE
The basic provisions for the government of Oregon counties are contained in the Oregon
Constitution and the Oregon Revised Statutes. A county is the largest political subdivision
of the state having corporate powers. It is vested by the Legislature with the powers
necessary to provide for the health and welfare of the people within its borders. The
specific organizational structure of a county in Oregon will vary from county to county,
County as Distinguished from a City
There is a fundamental distinction between a county and a city. Counties lack broad
powers of self-government that Oregon cities have (e.g., cities have broad revenue
generating authority and counties do not). In addition, legislative control over counties is
more complete than it is over cities. Unless restricted by a specific provision of the state
constitution, the Legislature may delegate to the counties any of the functions that belong
to the state itself. Conversely, the state may take back to itself and resume the functions
that it has delegated to counties (e.g., state funding of trial courts).
Types of Counties
The Oregon Constitution recognizes two types of counties: general law counties and
charter counties. General law counties adhere to state law as to the number and duties of
county elected officials (three commissioners, unless another number is established by
ordinance, sheriff, clerk, assessor, treasurer and surveyor). Charter counties, on the other
hand, have a limited degree of "home rule" authority that may provide for the election,
compensation, terms, removal, and salary of the governing board; for the election or
appointment, compensation, terms, and removal of all county officers; for the powers and
duties of all officers; and for consolidation and segregation of county offices, A charter
does not give county officials extra authority over local regulations, revenue-raising
abilities, budgetary decisions, or intergovernmental relations.
A county may adopt, amend, or repeal a charter wi-dr majority vote approval. The Board
of Commissioners, a charter commission, or an initiative petition may propose a new
charter or the amendment or repeal of an existing charter. The provisions of a charter are
the law of the county and have the force and effect of legislative enactments. There are
currently 27 general law counties and 9 charter counties in Oregon.
County Powers
\
\ \
The Oregon Constitution authorizes a county to make and enforce local ordinances that do
not conflict with general laws. A county also has the power to sue and be sued, purchase
and hold land, manage or dispose of its properties, and levy and collect taxes authorized by
law. Many additional powers only have been granted to counties by the Legislature.
The powers of a county can only be exercised by the Board of Commissioners or through
officers acting under the authority of the Board or authority conferred by law, In addition,
the Board must follow the procedural requirements in the statutes or its actions will not be
valid. For example, if the Legislature has provided a method by which a county may
abandon a road, that method must be followed, Also, where state law requires land use
zoning by an ordinance, this statutorily prescribed method is binding on the county. On
the other hand, where the law does not specifically prescribe a method for accomplishing a
task, the county may adopt any reasonably suitable means.
The legislative grant of power has, however, been significantly broadened, with the most
dramatic change occurring in 1973 with the adoption of ORS 203.035. That statute grants
significant corporate authority to general law counties providing in part.., "the governing
body or the electors of a county may by ordinance exercise authority within the county
over matters of county concern, to the fullest extent allowed by constitutions, and laws of
the United States and this state, as fully as if each particular power comprised in that
general authority were specifically listed in ORS 203.030 to 203.075."
The Board of Commissioners
Unlike the separation of powers that characterizes the federal and state governments, The
Board of Commissioners is both the legislative and the executive authority of the county. It
also has quasi-judicial responsibilities.
Board Structure
Oregon Revised Statute ORS 203.030,203.111 and 203.240, require each county to have a
Board of Commissioners consisting of three members or county court consisting of a
county judge and two commissioners. The section applies to general law counties and to
charter counties, except where a county's charter provides otherwise.
Board of Commissioners Powers
The Board of Commissioners exercises its power and' authori ty by undertaking the
following roles: executive, legislative, and quasi-judicial.
Executive Role
The Board performs its executive role when it sets priorities for the county. The Board
oversees most county departments and programs and annually,approves their budgets;
supervises the conduct of county officers and employees; contrbis all county property; and
appropriates and spends money on programs that meet county residents' needs. The Board
of Commissioners also has the power to direct and control the conduct of litigation in
which the county or any public entity, which the Board governs, is a party, and by a two-
thirds vote, it may employ outside attorneys to assist the county counsel in conducting such
litigation. '
Legislative Role
As the legislative body of the county, The Board of Commissioners may act by resolution,
by board order, or by ordinance. A resolution is not ordinarily equivalent to an ordinance
and is usually a declaration about future purposes or proceedings of the Board or a policy
statement by the Board. A Board order is usually a directive from the Board of
Commissioners to its subordinate county officers. An ordinance is a local law adopted with
all the legal formality of a statute.
County Revenue Authority - The Board of Commissioners can raise local revenue by
imposing or increasing a tax, an assessment, or a fee. Each of these local revenue sources
has its own constitutional and statutory authority and unique laws governing its use. A
county can impose only those taxes, assessments, and fees which the Legislature or the
Constitution allow the county to impose.
Quasi-Judicial Role
In its quasi-judicial role, the Board of Commissioners may settle claims made against the
county and may examine and audit the accounts of all county officers as they relate to the
management and disbursement of funds. The Board also sits as a quasi-judicial body in the
case of appeals of land use decisions.
Other Duties - Intergovernmental Relations
A commissioner may serve in other capacities on various boards, commissions, or special
districts. The roles and functions of various entities primarily relate to planning for future
development and the associated service needs and impacts
\
\\
OREGON CONSTITUTION AND OREGON REVISED STATUTES
ON
COUNTY HOME RULE
Background: Oregon law allows two basic forms of government for its 36 counties, General Law
or an option of a Home Rule Charter. Nine counties have adopted home rule
charters, (Benton, Clatsop, Hood River, Jackson, Josephine, Lane, Multnomah,
U matilla, and Washington). The other twenty-seven counties have general law forms
of government and operate under a broad general statutory grant of authority. The
authority for home rule counties comes from the constitution.
Article VI, Section 10 - State constitution provision that permits county voters to adopt, amend or
repeal a county charter. A county charter shall prescribe the organization of county government, the
number, election or appointment, qualifications, tenure, compensation, powers and duties of county
officers. It may include provisions for the exercise of county authority "over matters of county
concern," but not over matters of statewide concern that are within the state legislature's authority,
ORS 203.035 - General law grant of authority "over matters of county concern," enacted in 1973
to extend the legislative power of counties without home rule. Gives general law counties virtually
the same authority to legislate on matters of county concern as county charters, e.g. changing number
of commissioners, declaring offices non-partisan etc. Marion County used this provision to refer a
measure to the voters at the November, 1986 election changing the county surveyor from an elective
to an appointed position.
COUNTY HOME RULE STATUTES - ORS 203.710 to 203.810 set out the procedures for
changing to a county home rule form of government.
ORS 203.710 - Performance of functions
* County officers designated to perform functions under these statutes extends to those officers who
are designated to perform the same functions under a county charter or legislation enacted thereto.
* Adoption, amendment or repeal of county charters at any biennial primary or general election.
ORS 203.720 - Electors may adopt, amend, revise ~r repeal county charter
*Electors may adopt, amend, revise or repeal a charter by majority vote
*Charter shall contain provisions to amend, revise or repeal a county charter. This is specifically
deemed a matter of county concern that will prevail over other state statutes. (For example, some
charters require more than a majority vote for some amendments.)
ORS 203.725 - County charter amendments single subject; separate submission to electors
*Proposed amendments by either the board or initiative must be one subject.
*Two or more amendments on the same election must be submitted and voted on separately.
*Sing1e subject requirement cannot be changed by charter.
ORS 203.730 - Charter committee
* May be initiated by board resolution requesting appointment of a charter committee filed with clerk.
Clerk has five days from filing resolution to give notice to persons entitled to participate in
appointing the charter committee members.
*May be initiated by citizen petition signed by 4% of all votes cast for Governor at most recent
election and filed with clerk. Clerk has 15 days to verify and certify signatures. If petition is found
to be sufficient, clerk gives immediate notice to persons entitled to participate in appointing the
charter committee members.
ORS 203.740 - Charter committee members; appointment, qualifications, vacancies, terms,
organization, meetings.
*Committee shall be appointed within 60 days of filing of resolution or certification of petition.
*Four members are appointed by the county board, four by the local state legislative delegation;
majority of those eight members appoint the ninth member of the charter committee.
*If appointments are not made within the first 45 days, county clerk sends notice and calls a meeting
to be held within the last 15 days. If all appointments are not made within the 60 days, the county
board may appoint the additional members within 10 days from the expiration of the 60 days.
*Committee members must be electors of the county and cannot be directly or indirectly engaged
in business with the county that is inconsistent with committee member duties. County
commissioners and the local state legislators cannot serve as a member of the charter committee.
* Terms of committee members are two years from the filing of the resolution or certification of the
petition, or until a proposed charter is voted upon, whichever is sooner. If proposed charter is not
submitted within two years, terms may be extended until the day of the election on the proposed
charter or another two years, whichever is sooner.
*Vacancies are filled by the appointing authority who appointed the original member, or ifnot done
within 10 days of the vacancy, by the county board.
*Committee members must hold its first organizational meeting within 80 days from the filing of
the resolution or certification of the petition. Quorum (majority) is needed for the transaction of
business. Committee may adopt rules for operation but may not exclude the public from attending
any of its meetings.
ORS 203.750 - County funds for charter committee; staff; county cooperation
*County must provide funds in the amount of at least otie cent per elector or $500, whichever is
greater, to pay the expenses of the committee in preparation of the charter.
*Charter committee members serve without pay. ,J"
*Committee may use its funds to hire help or contract for services to aid it in its functions.
Committee shall submit a budget of estimated expenditures to county board, and, if approved by the
board, the budget authorizes the expenditure limits. Excess funds go back to county general fund.
*County shall provide adequate office space in addition to funds.
* County officials and employees must cooperate with the committee and provide information, advice
and assistance to the fullest extent possible.
\ ,
ORS 203.760 - Submission of proposed charter, after public hearing, to electors
*Committee shall hold at least one public hearing on a proposed charter before submitting it.
*Proposed charter must be submitted to the county clerk at least 90 days before the election.
*If approved by voters, charter takes effect on the date specified therein.
*Iftwo or more charters are approved at the same election, charter with the most yes votes wins.
-..,
3
Daryl S. Garrettson
Jane Ellen Stonecipher
County Structure-
Powers and Limitations
CHAPTER OUTUNE
I. (13.1) INTRODUCTION
II. ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE
A. (13.2) General Law County
1. (13.3) Histories of General law
Counties in Oregon
County law Revision
Current Organization
2. (13.4)
3. (13.5)
B. Home Rule
1. U3.6)
2. U3.7)
3. U3.8)
Definition
History
Current Status of Home
Rule
4. U3.9) Organizational Options
III. COUNTY GOVERNING BODIES
A. U3.10) Types and Organization
B. (13.11) Functions
1. (13.12) legislative
2. (13.13) Judicial/Quasi-Judicial
3. (13.14) Administrative/Executive
4. (13.15) Budgetary Authority
C. U3.16) limitations
D. (13.17) Qualifications to Serve
E. U3.181 Executive Officers
IV. OTHER COUNTY OFFICERS
A. County Clerk
1. (13.19) History
2. Functions
a. (~3.201 Recording
b. U 3.21 ) Elections
c. U3.22) Judicial
d. (13.23) Administrative
3. (~3.24) Qualifications to Serve
4. (13.25) County Accountant
Affecting Status of County
Clerk
B. Sheriff
1. (3.261 History
2. Functions
a. U3.27) Judicial
b. 13.28) law Enforcement
Function
c. (13.29) Administrative
3. U3.301 Qualifications to Serve
C. County li'easurer
1. U3.31) History
2. (13.32) Functions
Daryl S. Garrettson, assistant legal counsel, Marion County, Salem; B.S., Portland State University
(1973); J.D., Northwestern School of Law at Lewis and Clark College (1976).
Jane Ellen Stonecipher, assistant legal counsel, Marion County, Salem; A.B., Indiana University
(1973); J.D., Stanford Law School (1977).
3-1
~3.lICounty Structure-Powers and Limitations
3. (~3.33) Umitations
4. U3.34) Qualifications
D. County Surveyor
1. U3.35) Functions
2. (~3.36) Qualifications to Serve
V. OTHER COUNTY COMMISSIONS AND
COMMITTEES
A. Fair Boards
1. (~3.37) History
2. (~3.38) Functions
3. U3.39) Umitations
4. (~3.40) Manner of Selection
B. Board of Health
1. (~3.41) History
2. (~3.42) Functions
3. (~3.43) Umitations
4. U3.44) Manner of Selection
C. Board of Equalization
1. (~3.45) History
2. (~3.46) Function
D. U3.47) Other Committees and
Commissions
VI. VACANCIES IN OFFICE
A. (~3.48) What Constitutes a Vacancy
B. U3.49) Umitations
I. (13.1) INI'RODUcnON
Counties in Oregon were the original ~rm of
local government. Counties provided the basic
services of revenue collection, courts, recording,
law enfurcement, and e1ectionsfur the entity now
called the state, previously the territory, and
befure that, the provisional government. All
counties continue in one way or another to
provide these services or to assist the' state in
providing them.
D. ORGANIZATION AND Sl'RUCfURE
A., (13.2) General Law County
A general law county does not have a charter.
While all counties are created by and have their
functions determined by the legislature, the
organization and manner of carrying out those
functions in a general law county is also
determined by the general laws of the State of
Oregon.
A county is not a private corporation, and
its rights are not determined by the law
applicable to such a corporation. It is
merely a political agent of the state,
created by law for governmental purposes,
and is charged with the performance of
certain duties for and on behalf of the state
0'
t"
Ymnhill County v. Foster, 53 Or 124, 133, 99 P
286 (1909).
A general law county cannot even enact a law
or adopt an ordinance unless it has been granted
that power by the legislature. Carriker v. Lake
County, 89 Or 240, 246, 171 P 407, 173 P 513
(1918).
1. (13.3) Histories or General Law
Counties in Oregon
At common law, a county was one of the civil
divisions of the state. It was created by the state '
fur judicial and political purposes without the
solicitation, consent or concurred action of the
people who inhabited it, and was vested with few
functions of corporate existence. Grant County v.
Lake County, 17 Or 453, 458 (1889).
At common law an action \\Quid not lie
against a county. Counties were not
corporations and they had no corporate
capacity, either to sue or be sued. They
were created fur legislative and judicial
purposes. They had no governing board,
no power to levy taxes and no corporate
fund in which a judgment against them
could be satisfied~ Nor \\Quid an action lie
against the inhabi~ts of a county unless
some act of Parliament gave a right of'
action . . . .
Gearin v. Marion County, 110 Or 390, 393-394,
223 P 929 (1924).
However in Oregon, by statute, a county is a
body politic and corporate and has certain
attributes of a municipal corporation such as the
/
1,
)
3-2
County Structure-Powers and Limitations/~3.5
-'0,
)
power to sue and be sued. Gearin v. Marion
County, supra at 394. See also Jackson County v.
Ulrich, 118 Or 47, 50, 244 P 535 (1926);
Multnomah County v. 1Itle Gum: Co., 46 Or 523,
533, 80 P 409 ~1905).
Thus, in Oregon a general law county enjoyed
a duel character. It was a governmental agency of
its principle, the state, and as an agent of the state
has strictly limited powers. It was also a body
corporate with those corporate pOwers granted to
it by the state. 'Rest Yo Coos County, 115 Or 409,
414, 237 P 961 (1925). This duel capacity has
existed since beLOre statehood, with the corporate
aspects of a general county dating back to 1854.
Tzllamook Co. Yo State Boarrl if Forestry, 302 Or
404, 415, 730 P2d 1214 (1986). See also Coos
County Yo State of Oregon, 303 Or 173, 177, 734
P2d 1348 (1987). '
2. (13.4) County law Revision
A general law county is still very much a
creature of the legislature, execcising only that
authority given to it by the legislature. Carriker Yo
Lake County, 89 Or 240, 246, 171 P 407, 173 P
573 (1918). The legislative grant of power has,
however, been significantly broadened, with the
most dramatic change occurring in 1973 with the
adoption of ORS 203.035. That statute grants
significant corporate authority to general law
counties, 1983 OR LAws ch 282, 12, providing in
relevant part:
(1) Subject to subsection (3) of this sec-
tion, the governing body or the
electors of a county may by ordinance
ex.eccise authority within the county
over matters of county concern, to the
fullest extent allowed by COnstitutiODS,
and laws of the United States and this
state, as fully as if each particular
power comprised in that general
authority were specifically listed in
ORS 203.030 to 203.075.
The Oregon Supreme Court has characterized
ORS 203.035 as creating 1"statutory home rule
counties." Multnomah Kennel Qub v. Dept. of
Rev. , 295 Or 279, 283, 666 P2d 1327 (1983). The
authors, however, prefer the term "general law
county" to describe those counties that derive
their legislative authority from the general laws
from the state of Oregon and apparently so does
the legislature. See ORS 203.810(1)(a).
The movement towards a statutory home rule
fur general law counties reached its zenith in the
1981 county law revision. The result was the
repeal of many of the specific statutes governing
counties. 1981 OR LAws ch 140 provided in its
preamble:
Whereas many statutes relating to matters
of county concern have been previously
enacted by the legislative assembly; and
Whereas such statutes are unnecessary
since the governing body and the wters in
each county can now enact ordinances
which treat the subject matter of the
statutes in a manner deemed necessary or
desirable in each county; and
Whereas repeal of statutes relating to
matters of county concern, therefure, does
not indicate lack of power in the county
governing bodies to act on the subject
matter of such statutes nor express any
judgment of the Legislative Assembly as
to the policies established therein; and
Whereas the Sixty-first Legislative
Assembly supports the principle that
matters of county concern should be l~ to
the governing body and wters of each
county to be regulate:d by county
ord~ce in a matter deemed necessary or
deSirable in the county . . . .
The culmination of county law revisions occurred
in 1985 with the enactment of 1985 OR LAws ch
756. That act allowed general law counties to
change the number of county commissioners and
to change the county sucve}Qr to an appointed
position. '
,
3. (13.5) Current Organization
Geneca1law counties are currently structured
with a governing body, ORS 203.030, '203.111,
and 203.240, with three members, unless another
number is established by ordinance. ORS
203.035(3) and ORS 203.24O(1)(b). ORS 204.005,
provides fur an elected sheriff, county clerk,
3-3
~3. 6/County Structure Powers and Limitations
county assessor, county treasurer, and county
sUl'Ve)Ur. The county clerk, treasurer, and sheriff
are also provided fur in OR CONST art VI, ~.
The office of county ~r may be converted
from an elected to an appointed position. ORS
203.035(3). The functions of each of these
officers will be discussed below.
B. Home Rule
1. (13.6) Definition
Home rule counties are units of local
government that have adopted their own charters
regulating their local affilirs pursuant to OR
CONST art VI, fl0. The supreme court has
described these counties as "constitutional home
rule counties..., Multnomah Kennel' Dub v. Dept.
of ReVe, 295 Or 279,281,,666 P2d 1327 (1983).
2. (13.7) History
Counties acquired the authority to enact
charters in 1958 with the adoption of OR CONST
art VI, 110. Cqffey v. Lane County, 298 Or 183,
187,691 P2d 94 (1984). Prior to the adoption of
the constitutional amendment allowing counties to
adopt charters, there was no constitutional
authority fur a county to function as a municipal
corporation. See Carriker v. ~ County, 89 Or
240, 245, 171 P 407, 173 P 573 (1918). The
constitutional amendment providing fur home rule
carried in every county in the state, winning
approval by a vote of 311,516 yes to 157,023 no.
County Home Rule in Oregon ReadIes Majority,
61 OR L REv, 5, 35 (1982).
3. (13.8) Current Status of Home Rule
Constitutional home' rule was' originally
envisioned as a wiy fur C9untieS to 'aWid having
to go to the legislature 10 change general laws
affecting county operations. Charter counties
operated under their charters rather than the
general laws like general laW counties. The court
has nevertheless treated general law counties and
home rule counties the same. Cqffey v. Lane
County, 298 Or 183, 187, 691 P2d 94 (1984);
MuItnomah Kennel Dub v. Dept. of Rev., 295 Or
279, 284, 666 P2d 1327 (1983).
With the development of the doctrine of pre-
emption, there remained little if any substantial
difference between a home rule county and a
genera1law county.
Similarly, the county charter does not
authorize defendant to enact ordinances
which violate state law. In City of
Roseburg v. Roseburg City Fuefighters,
292 Or 266,274-276,639 P2d 90 (1981),
the supreme court reiterated that, although
laws enacted pursuant to home rule
charters are preeminent in matters of local
political organization, legislative
enactments remain re-eminent in matters
concerning "substantive social, economic
or other regulatory objectives."
Accordingly, any confiict between
Ordinance No. 367 and ORS 758.010
must be resolved in fawr of the state
statute.
Pacific N. lv. Bell V. MuItrwmah Co., 68 Or App
375, 378, 681 P2d 797 (1984). See also
LaGrande/Astoria v. PERB, 281 Or 137,576 P2d
1204, adhered to on rehearing, 284 Or 173,586
P2d 765 (1978), and Denton Plastics, Inc. v. City
of Portland, 105 Or App 302 _ P2d _ (1991),
(further discussion of pre-emption).
4. (13.9) Ol'g'lni7lltiooal Options
The primary difference at this time between a
home rule county and a general law county is that
a home rule county may alter its strUctural
organizatiOn, and may ~imin~ ,or change the
status of county elected officelS, including officers
such as the clerk and sheriff whose, status . in a
general law county is d~ed by,the,Oiegon
constitution. County ,H~" J!ule .in_ 'Ore~on
Reaches Majority,61,PR L'REV .s,,64."See also
30 OP Arr'y GEN':388, "389 (Or 1962).
Orvni"wonally' 'a 'ge1Jeral law COunty may only
change the number of county commissioners and
change the SUIVe}Or 10 an appointed position.
ORS 203.035.
The duties of those officerS, however, are still
a matter of state law and must be absorbed into
w~er structure a home rule county chooses to
adopt pursuant to its charter.
0,',
, ,,'
....-""'"',
t '
~" )
/,..." ",
C'___)
3-4
County Structure-Powers and Limitations/~3. 12
'\
I
/
An in depth discussion of county home rule
can be fuund in Orval Etter's t\W excellent law
review articles, County Home Rule in Oregon
Reaches Majority, supra, and County Home Rule
In Oregon, 46 OR L REv 251 (1967).
m. COUNTY GOVERNING BODIES
A. (13.10) 'I)pes and Organi7ation
In Oregon, county governing bodies consist
either boards of commissioners or county courts.
For county purposes there is no distinction. See
ORS 203.240(1): There are several counties that
still have county judges who also perfurm judicial
functions; however, the county judge does not
exercise authority CJVer matters of county concern
unless he or she is also sitting with at least one of
the county commissioners. ORS 203.111.
Currently all county courts and general law
boards of commissioners are comprised of three
people, although a different number could be
instituted by vote of the electors of the county.
ORS 203.035(3). All home rule counties in
Oregon also currently have boards of county
commissioners as their governing body, although
the number and roles of the various
commissioners differ dramatically. When dealing
with a home rule county, one should consult that
county's charter in order to' determine the powers
and functions of the governing body.
B. (f3.11) Functions
The functions of county governing bodies are
broken down into rour areas; legislative,
judicial/quasi-judicial, administrative/executive,
and budgetary. These functions are exercised by
the governing body in general law counties,
however, in charter counties. some of these
functions may be delegated to ~ther people by
charter or ordinance.
1. (13.12) Legislative
The county governing body is defined by ORS
203.030 as that representative body vested with
legislative power by statute or charter. ORS
203.111 provides that the county court is the body
given legislative power over matters of county
concern unless otherwise provided by charter.
ORS 203.240 then gives the power of the county
court to the board of commissioners in those
counties without a county judge. Finally, ORS
203.035 grants the county governing body the
fullest authority available under the constitutions
of the United States and the state of Oregon over
matters qf county. concern.
It has been generally accepted that, without a
grant power such as ORS 203.035 or a charter
adopted pursuant to the constitution, a co~ty
board of commissioners \\Quid have no authoflty
to legislate. Carriker v. Lake County, 89 Or 240,
246, 171 P 407, 173 P 573 (1918). There is,
however, some authority to the contrary. In Ros-
boro Lumber Co. v. Heine, 289 Or 909, 618 P2d
960 (1980), the supreme court cited with approval
Russel v. Crook County Coun, 75 Or 168, 145 P
653, 146 P 806 (1915) as rollows:
The constitution provides, in effect, as al-
ready shown, that three persons may
constitute the County Court fur the
transaction of . county business.' The
statute provides fur the election of t\W
persons to sit with the county judge in the
transaction of · county business.' It is fair
to presume that, when the framers of the
constitution used this term, they meant to
include all business pertaining to the
county as a corporate entity, and, if this
be so, it is not in the power of the
legislature to limit its meaning by
de,finition.
289 Or at 920.
The problem with relying on this case is that the
constitutional provision relied upon in Russel was
OR CONST art VB (original), fi12. Under OR
CONST art VB (amended), fi2, original art VB
now has only the furce of statute and may be
changed by action~f the legislature. Therefure,
although the court in Rosboro Lumber Co., supra,
cites Russel fur the proposition that there is
constitutional authority fur the county court to
conduct county business, it \\Quid appear that the
constitutional authority no longer exists. It could
be concluded that county boards of commissioners
have, pursuant to original OR CONST art VII, a
broad grant of authority unless specifically limited
3-5
~3.13/County Structure-Powers and Limitations
by the legislature. However, that issue has never
been squarely addressed.
In addition to the broad grant of authority
under either a charter or ORS 203.035, county
governing bodies have been given specific
authority to adopt ordinances in certain areas. For
example: ORS 609.205 authorizes a county to
adopt an ordinance prohibiting the keeping of
exotic animals; and ORS 215.050 authorizes a
county to adopt land use ordinances. For a general
law county this additional authority can be
important because ORS 203.045 provides a
procedure tOr adopting ordinances pursuant to
ORS Chapter 203. The ORS 203.045 procedure
does not apply to ordinances adopted under the
authority of other statutes.
2. (13.13) Judicial/Quasi-Judicial
The nature of the functions of a county judge
with judicial functions in those counties retaining
that office is set tOrth in ORS Chapter 5 and will
not be dealt with here.
The legislature has given boards of
commissioners certain quasi-judicial roles. The
court has defined a quasi-judicial function:
A judicial or quasi-judicial function is one
that inwlves or requires an adjudicatory
process. A typical adjudicatory process
results in a decision, applies pre-existing
criteria to concrete fdcts and is directed at
a closely circumscribed filctual situation or
a relatively small number of persons.
Koch v. Oty if Portland, 306 Or 444, 448, 760
P2d 252 (1988). One of the principal quasi-
judicial roles most boards serve in is the area of
land use. Fasano v. Board of Commissioners
Wzshington County, 264 Or 574, 507 P2d 23
(1973). '
3. (13.14) AdministrativelExecutive
ORS 203.010 provides that each county is a
body politic incorporate tOr the purposes of suing
and being sued, purchasing and holding county
lands, making contracts, and doing all other acts
in relation to the property and concerns of the
county.
The status of a county, which has been
discussed above, is pertinent to the question of
who exercises administrative and executive
powers. ORS 203.030 and ORS 203.111 grant to
the board of commissioners, legislative powers.
But where does the grant' of administrative power
come from?
Courts have inferred that power from the
nature of counties in their corporate capacity. The
supreme court has likened the board of county
commissioners to the, board of directors or
managing agents of a corporation, recognizing that
commissioners are charged with the general care
and management of county property, funds and
business. The court also recognized that this
authority is necessary to conduct the business of
the county tOr administrative purposes, indicating
that the legislature did not intend to restrict the
powers of the county court in the management of
the general physical and business affairs of the
county. Mulmomah County v. Tule Gum: Co., 46
Or 523, 533 and 537, 80 P 409 (1905). The
county court's function as the fiscal and managing
agent of the county. llest v. Coos County, 115 Or
409, 415, 237 P 961 (1925).
The power of the ~unty, as a body
politic, can only be exercised by the
county judge and commissioner sitting tOr
the transaction of county business, or by a
board of county commissioners, . . .
* * * *
0.,....',.
1\ "
~~.i,.;
~, -~")-,
f '
\.'"--..~
The members of the county court in
per1brming such functions act in a similar
capacity as a board of directors, or
managing agents of the corporation.
Jackson County v. Ulrich, 118 Or 47,51-52,244
P 535 (1926).
4. (13.15) Bu~etary Authority
ORS 204.116 provides that the county
governing body shall fix the compensation of all
persons paid from county funds unless otherwise
provided by law, and ORS 294.435 grants the
county governing body the power to adopt a
budget subject to the limitations of local budget
law. Finally, ORS 310.010,310.020, and 310.030
(~
3-6
\
)
, authorize the county governing body to levy those
taxes necessary to defray county "expenses.
The court of appeals has ruled that when state
statute mandates a service and requires the coun-
ties to fund it, but does not specify the amount of
funding or service level, the budgetary decision
rests solely with the county governing body, and
the court will not review the decision:
Reduced to essentials,' plaintiffs'
contention is that the amount of funds that
the county commissioners budgeted fur
law enfurcement services was less than the
sheriff thinks he needs. As we have noted,
the relevant statutes do not specify what
level of funding the county must provide,
and the funding level is a matter fur the
commissioners:-not the sheriff and not the
courts-to decide.
Burks v. Lane County, 72 Or App 257, 266, 695
P2d 1373 (1985).
C. (13.16) limitations
The authority of county governing bodies is
limited in t\W ways. rust by the adoption of
specific statutes covering specific areas such as
public employee" collective bargaining, ORS
243.650 to 243.782. These statutes operate to
preempt county authority. Po4/ic N.W Bell v.
Multnomah Co., 68 Or App 375, 378, 681 P2d
797 (1984).
The second type of limitation is statutory.
There are statutes that directly limit a county's
authority; they generally apply only to general law
counties. ORS 203.040, tOr example, provides
that ordinances adopted by a general law county
pursuant to ORS 203.035 do not apply inside
cities without the cities' cooseot. Some limitations
apply to both general law and d1arteI" counties,
such as ORS 203.810, which limits the penalties
that can be imposed fur a, violation of a county
ordinance. When dealing with a county the
practitioner should check. first whence the county
derives its power, and then if there are any
limitations on that power.
D. (13.17) Qualifications to Serve
1b serve as a county commissioner, one must
be a citizen of the U ilited States, an elector under
County StructUre-Powers and Limitations/~3.19
the Oregon Constitution, and a resident of the
county fur a period' of one year preceding the
election. ORS 204.016(1). The candidate, if
elected, may also be required to file an
appropriate undertaking if one is required by the
county governing body. ORS 204.020(4). Home
role counties may have different qualifications set
furth in their charters.
E. (13.18) Executive Officers
General law counties have no provision fur an
executive officer. ORS 210.100 does allow a
general law county to create a county accountant
who, under ORS 210.170, is the chief accountant
tOr the county and authorized to (7l1mine all
claims, demllnds, and accounts against the county
and pay them as if authorized by the bow of
commissioners.
Under ORS 203.035,' the bow of
commissioners could arguably delegate authority
to a county executive officer. 1b what extent this
might constitute an improper delegation of the
county commissioners' discretion is a question
that has not been answered. See \lest v. Coos
County, 115 Or 409, 415, 237 P 961 (1925).
Charter counties may establish the position of
executive officer by charter.
Iv.. Ol'w.;K COUNTY OFFICERS
A. County Clerk
1. (13.19) History
The"office of county clerk was established by
the constitution. Original OR CONSf art vn, i 15
provided tOr the election of a county clerk who
was to be responsible fur the keeping of public
records of the county, serve as clerk of the court
(bOth circuit and county), and pertorm such other
duties prescribed by law. Since that time the func-
tions of the court ~erk have been taken over by
the state trial court administrator's office. See
1981 OR LAws (special session) ch 3.
Originally, the county clerk was viewed as a
quasi-judicial officer and thererore not authorized
to delegate his or her functions in the absence of
a statutory authorization. State v. Smit 1 Or 250
, .,
251 (1859). The legislature has since, pursuant to
ORS 204.601 and its predecessors, authorized the
3-7
~3.20/County Structure-Powers and Limitations
appointment of deputy clerks. The county clerk
does retain his or her status as a constitutional
officer. OR CONST art VI, ~, although county
clerk functions are now established by general
law.
2. Functions
a. (13.20) Recording
The recording functions of the county clerk
are set furth in ORS 205.130. Most instruments
subject to recording can be fuund listed in ORS
Chapter 93 and ORS 203.130. The attorney
general has opined that the county clerk is
required to accept fOr recording only those
instruments set furth in state statute. 40 OP ATI'Y
GEN 188, 189 (Or 1979).
The county clerk is also responsible fOr
maintaining the county clerk lien records, ORS
205.130, and is the filing officer under the
unifurm commercial code fur security interests
where the collateral is timber to be cut, minerals
or fixtures. ORS 79.4010. The clerk may also
serve as filing officer fur other instruments and
records. The statutes concerning the particular
record or instrument should be consulted. '
b. (13.21) EJections
Under ORS 246.200 the county clerk is the
only election officer authorized to conduct an
election in the state, however, the county clerk is
subject to the directives and instructions of the
secretary of state. ORS 246.120. The secretary of
state is the chief election officer of the state. ORS
246.110.
The county clerk is responsible fOr the
supervision of local election officials, ORS
246.210, and is authorized to employ persons and
procure materials and mcilities necessary to the
admini~tration of election laws. ORS 246.250.
The county clerk also desigJ'Me8 polling
places, ORS 246.420, passes on wtec registration
qualifications, ORS 247.174, holds hearings on
qualifications, ORS 247.195, prints the ballots,
ORS 254.185, and certifies the results, ORS
254.545.
Co (13.22) Judicial
In addition to the maintenance of the county
clerk's lien record noted above, the county clerk
also performs the function as court clerk fur those
county courts ret3ining judicial functions. ORS
205.110.
",;,
'%J
d. (13.23) Administrative
The county clerk keeps the record of the
county. OR CONST art vn (original), i15. The
county clerk is responsible fur the supervision of
the employees of the clerk's office, ORS
204.601(2) and the supervision ofprecinct election
boards. ORS 246.310 to 246.335.
In addition, the county clerk plays a role in
the overall administration of the county. The
county clerk is responsible fOr the preparation and
presentation of orders to the county treasurer fur
the payment of county bills. ORS 208.020. The
county clerk's office is the depository fur those
orderS when they have been redeemed. 20 OP
ATI"Y GEN 320 (Or 1960), ORS 208.050.
The county clerk also receives reports of the
sheriff and treasurer, ORS 294.240, and annually
publishes a report showing the number and
amount of claims allowed by the board of
commissioners, on what accounts, the amounts of
warrants drawn, etc. ORS 294.230.
/--"'\
.'( )
'...---.
3. (13.24) Qualifications to Serve
The qualifications to serve as county clerk are
the same as the qualifications to serve as a
commissioner.
,4. (13.25) County Aa:ountant Affecting
Status of County Clerk
ORS 210.100 authorizes the county, by
ordinance, to create an office of county
accountant. If it does so -then the role of the
county clerk set fOrth in ORS Chapters 208 and
294 is tunied over to 'the county accountant. ORS
210.170 and 294.230.'
B. Sheriff
1. (13.26) History
The office of sheriff was provided fur in the
constitution. OR CONST art vn (original), i16
, provided fur the election of the sheriff who was to
be the ministerial officer of the circuit and county
3-8
"--)
County Structure-Powers and Limitations/S3.32
courts, and to perfurm such other duties as could
be prescribed by law. Among the original
functions of the sheriff was the collection of taxes;
the board of commissioners now appoints the tax
collector. ORS }11.OS5. Vestiges of the sheriff's
tax collector authority can still be fuund in ORS
294.230(2), which requires the sheriff to report to
the county clerk all taxes collected.
The sheriff still retains the stanis as a
constitutional officer under OR CONST art VI, ~,
although the office may be elimin~ted by charter
in a home rule county. 30 OP A IT'Y GEN 388,
389 (Or 1962).
2. Functions
a. (13.27) Judidal
The sheriffis required under ORS 206.010(3),
, (4), and (5) to provide certain services to the
courts. In this regard the sheriff function as the
courts' enfOrcement officer. The duties set furth
in ,the statute are mandatory. In Hamilton v.
Hamilton, 66 "Or App 936, 940, 676 P2d 341
(1984), the court held that the sheriff had a
statutory duty to serve summons in civil action,
and that duty was enfOrceable by writ of
mandamus. The court rejected the sheriff's
defense that he did not have the budgetary
resources necessary to perfurm the service.
In Oregon, the sheriff must, when provided
with process, proceed with reasonable celerity to
execute it; it is not fur the sheriff to modify or
delay the writs delivered to him or her. Sku11ason
v. Pratt, 169 Or 617, 622-623, 130 P2d 17
11942). It is interesting to note that although the
sheriffhas this mandatory duty, the legislature has
not set the level of service nor the funding.
Theretbre, the decision on how to appropriate
funds fur this service belongs to the board of
coDimissioners. Burks v. Lane OJunty, 72 Or App
257, 266, 695 P2d 1373 (1985).
b. (13.28) law Enforcement Function
The law eofurcement function of the sheriff is
set furth in ORS 206.010(1), which provides that
the sheriff is a conservator of peace of the county
and is to arrest ai1d commit to prison all persons
who break the peace, or attempt to break it, and
all persons guilty of public offenses. Under ORS
206.010(2), the sheriff is also obliged to defend
the county against those who endanger the public
peace or safety. The sheriff is also the keeper of
the local county correctional facility and has the
custody and control of all persons legally com-
mitted or confined to that facility. ORS 169.320.
Co (13.29) Mministrative
Although ORS 206.010 defines the sheriff as
the chief executive officer of the county, the cases
cited in ~3.27, supra, make it clear that the
sheriff has no role in the administration of the
county in general. The sheriff does, however,
have authority over the arlminh:tration of his
office, ORS 206.210, and is responsible fur the
care and custody of prisoners confined to the
county correctional facility. ORS 169.320. The
sheriff is not liable fur the acts of his or her
deputies in those counties with civil service
systems. ORS 204.635(4). The basis fur this
statute is the county commissioners' authority to
limit the sheriff's discretion to appoint and
terminate deputy sheriffs. Graves v. Amado, 307
Or 358, 362, 768 P2d 910 (1989).
3. (13.30) Qualifications to Serve
OR CONST art VI, ~8 authorizes the legislature
to set qualifications fur the sheriff. The legislature
has done so; ORS 206.015 requires that
candidates fur the office of sheriff be 21 years
old, have experience as law enfurcement officers,
not have been convicted of a felony or other crime
that \Wutd prevent certification, and meet certain
requirements of the board of police standards and
training.
c. County Treasurer
1. (13.31) History
The county treaSurer is a constitutional officer;
OR CaNST art VI,' fi6 provides fur an elected
county treasurer.
2. (13.32) Functions
The duties and functions of the county
treasurer mund in ORS 208.010 and 208.020,
which provide that the county treasurer is to
3-9
~3.33/County StructUre-Powers and Limitations
0'..,,'.
,.,'.0
~~
~,.'
receive all monies due and accrumg to the county
and to 4isburse them. The county treasurer may
also be required to keep records of the bonds
issued by various districts and manage the bond
funds of those districts. ORS 208.200 and
208.210. Finally, the county treasurer's office
serves as the depository fur the collection of
property taxes by the county tax collector. ORS
311.385.
3. (13.33), Umitations
The county treasurer's authority to pay county
warrantS upon presentment is limited. The county
treasurer cannot pay a WdlTafit that the county
court/county commission has directed him not to
pay. Frankl v. Bailey, 31 Or 285, 291, 50 P 186
(1897).
In addition, the county treasurer's authority to
invest surplus funds belonging to the county or
aIYj other public entity is limited by ORS
294.035. This limitation applies to the types of
investments and the need fur written authority to
invest the money.
4. (13.34) Qualifications
The qualifications of the treasurer to serve are
the same as tOr county commissioners.
n County Surveyor
1. (13.35) Functions
The functions of county surv~r are fuund in
ORS Chapter 209. The surv~r surveys on court
order, ORS 209.020, keeps a record of surveys,
ORS 209.070, and establish monuments and cor-
ners, ORS 209.130. The county surv~r's status
as an independent elected official can be changed
under ORS 203.035.
2. (13.36) Qualifications to Serve
OR CONST art VI, ~8 authorizes the legislature
to set qualifications fur the county surv~r. The
qualifications fur the surv~r are set furth in
ORS 204.016; basically, the county surv~r is
required to be a registered professional land
surv~r.
v. OTHER coUNTY COMMISSIONS AND
coMMfITEES
A. Fair Boards
1. (13.37) History
County fair boards were created in 1913. 1913
OR LAws ch 146. They were given exclusive
management of the county fairs and the county
court is precluded from holding other fairs. 31 OP
Arr'y GEN. 184, 185 (Or 1963).
2. (13.38) Functions
The county fair board is given the exclusive
management of the grounds and all properties
owned, leased, used, or controlled bY the county
and de't'Oted to county fair use. The county fair
board is charged with the entire business
management of the fair. ORS 565.230. The fair
board is authorized to adopt those rules and
regulations necessary fur the proper conduct and
management of the fair; it may appoint marshals
or police as it determines necessary to ,preserve
order during the holding of fairs and at other
times. ORS 565.240.
t-'~
\'- )
3. (13.39) Limitations
Although the fair board is the exclusive
manager of fair funds, the fair budget must be
included as part of the overall county budget and
is subject to the provisions of local budget law. 32
OP Arr'y GEN 193 (Or 1965). The county fair
board is not a separate entity distinct from the
county. Further, the authority of the fair board to
act is to be narrowly construed; tOr example, the
fair board cannot lease fair property to a private
party fur private purposes. 31 OP A rr'y GEN 261
(Or 1965).
4. (13.40) Manner or Selection
The fair board of three to five members is
appointed by the bo~ of commissioners tOr a
term of three years. bnly one member may also
be a member of the county board of
commissioners. ORS 565.210. This restriction
does not apply to Multnomah County where the
county commissioners may substitute themselves
fur the fair boam. ORS 565.210(4). '
( __J
3-10
County Structure-Powers and Limitations/1J3.45
......
)
B. Board of Health
1. (13.41) History
County boards of health were created by the
1905 legislature. 1905 OR LAws ch 170. That act
provided tOr the county governing body to serve
as the ex-officio board of health and is currently
exists as ORS 431.410. Apparently not happy with
the result of the 1905 legislation, the 1931
Legislature authorized the county governing body
to create a county board of health. upon approval
by a majority vote of the electors of a county.
1931 OR LAws ch 398. This act is now ORS
431.412. The attorney general has written that
after the adoption of the 1931 measure, a county
could still create a board of health under the 1905
law without submitting the question to a vote. 18
OP ATI'y GEM 22S (Or 1937). The difference
between these t\\U statutes is reflected in how
boards of health are structured; the substance and
authority of the boards are the same.
Apparently the legislature -was still not
satisfied with what it had done and, in 1947,
authorized district boards of health comprised of
t\\O or more contiguous counties. 1947 OR 4ws
ch 388. This act is now ORS 431.414. A district
board may be made up of the t\\O. governing
bodies or may be similar to one created by
election under the 1931 law.
2. (13.42) Functions
The lhree types of boards of health pertOrm
the same functions. The board of health serves as
the policy~Iri'1g body in implementing the duties
of the local health department. ORS 431.415(1).
It is authorized to adopt rules and regulations
having the im:eof law. ORS 431.415(2); 34 OP
ATI'y GSH 433, (Or 1969).
WIth the ,permission of the county governing
body, they set feesfi>r services,: ORS431.415(3);
appoints the health administrator, 'ORS
431.418(1); approves the appointment by the
health administrator of such othec employees as
necessary, ORS 431.418(3)(b); removes the health
administrator and sets his or her salary, ORS
431.418(4) and (S).
3. (13.43) Limitations
Boards of health do not exercise authority
independent of the board of commissioners'
budgetary authority. Boards of health are subject
to local budget law. 33 OP Arr'y GEN 9-10 (Or
1966); See also Burks v. Lane County, 72 Or App
257, 266, 695 P2d 1373 (1985). This is true
despite ORS 431.418(5), which authorizes boards
of health, to set the ~mini~ttator'ssalary and ORS
431.510(1), which requires that the county
appropriate sufficient funds to operate the health
department.
Boards of health rulemalring authority under
ORS 431.415(2) is limited to rules that ~uld be
within the general authority of the state health
division and to rules that are not inconsistent with
the state healthdivision's rules. 34 OP Arr'y
GEN 433, 439 (Or 1969).
4. (13.44) Manner of Selection
The members ofboard of commissioners serve
as the members of a board of health created under
the authority of the 1905 law. ORS 431.405.
District boards of health may be comprised of
either the commissioners of the nw counties or
one member of each county governing body, a
school representative, a city representative, nw
physicians, a dentist, and a resident of the district
selected by the city and school representatives.
ORS 431.414.
Boards of health created under the authority of
the 1931 law, consist"of a member of the county
governing body, a school board or ESD board
member selected by the ESD board, a physician,
a dentist and three others selected by the county
commissioner and the school representative. ORS
431.412(2).
C. Board or EqualiDtioD .
1. (13.45) History
, The board :Of 'equaJi72tion was created to
. provide a tOrum tbr the review of property
valuations tOr ad valorem property tax purposes.
Originally, 'it consisted of the county assessor and
the county clerk, who met on the last Monday of
August to allow disgruntled taxpayers to contest
their valuation. Ore. Steam Nav. Co. v. Wzsco
County, 2 Or 206, 210 (1867), Rhea v. Umatilla
County, 2 Or 295, 300 (1868).
3-11
~3.46/County Structure-Powers and Limitations
2. (~3.46) Function
Before passage of Ballot Measure 5 (OR
CONST art XI, ~ 106) the board of equalization
examined the assessor's ratio study, corrected the
assessment rolls, increased or decreased valuation,
assessed omitted property, heard petitions fur
reduction in value, and considered requests to
excuse penalties. ORS 309.026. The board of
equalization acted in a judicial capacity, exercising
a judicial function. O. &: C R. R. Co. v. Jackson
County,- 38 Or 589, 602, 64 P 307, 65 P 369
(1901). The statutes authorizing the board of
equalization to act were strictly construed to the
point the board could only exercise that power ex-
pressly, or by necessary implication, conferred by
statute. University v. Multnomah Co., 31 Or 498,
SOl, 50 P 532 (1897). The wters' adoption of
Measure 5 (OR CONST art XI, fil16) in
November, 1990, will result in substantial changes
in the board of equalization's role and functions.
The practitioner should review the applicable
statutes.
D. (~3.47) Other Committees and
Commissions
There are many other committees and
commissions that operate within the frame\Wrk of
county government, including: the planning
commission, ORS 215.020; the county budget
committee, ORS 294.336; ,the county
compensation board, ORS 204.112; etc. When
dealing with any of these, or any county body or
agency, the practitioner should be careful to check
the statutes and/or county law regulating the
procedures and power of the body.
VI. VACANCIES IN OFFICE
A. (f3.48) Wluit Constitutes a \acancy
Several constitutional' provisions apply to
vacancies in office. OR CONST art VII (amended),
~ and art VII (original), fi19 provide as fullows:
Public officers shall not be impeached; but
incompetency, corruption, malfeasance or
delinquency in office may be tried in the
same manner as criminal offenses, and
judgment may be given of dismissal from
office, and 'such further punishment as
may have been prescribed by law.
OR CONST art XV, ~9 provides that the legislative
assembly may enact laws dealing with the vacancy
of an office when the office holder has been
elected to an<?ther public office. Finally, OR
CONST art VI, ~9 authorizes the legislature to
prescribe the manner in which vacancies in county
offices are filled.
The legislature has provided that an office
becomes vacant if the election is declared wid by
a competent tribunal, or if the incumbent dies,
resigns, or is removed, ceases to inhabit the coun-
ty, is convicted of an infdmous crime, refuses or
neglects to take the oath of office, is fuund to be
a mentally diseased person by a competent
tribunal, or ceases to possess any other
qualification required fur election or appointment
to the office. ORS 236.010
ORS 236.020 provides that the governor may
declare vacant the office Of any officer required
by law to post a bond, whenever a judgment is
obtained against the officer fur breach of the con-
ditions of the bond. The county court may remove
the county treasurer whenever any suit has been
filed on the official bond of the treasurer. ORS
236.240.
C).
~'"~~;
r--..--',
;' \
\" l
B. (f3.49) limitations
The statutes providing fur vacancy, ORS
236.010 and 236.020, have existed in substantially
the same furm since 1854. They were readopted
in 1870 and have remained relatively unchanged
since that-time. State ex rei Hayden v. Hill, 181
Or 585, 596-597, 184 P2d 366 (1947). The
question remains, however, whether in light of OR
CONST art VII, ~" which provides that incompe-
tence, etc. may be tried in the same manner as
criminal offenses and judgment may be given of
dismissal from office, statutes can be adopted that
are self-executing oryest the power to declare a
vacancy in some body other than the court.
In Fehl v. Jackson County, 177 Or 200, 161
P2d 782 (1945), the court upheld ORS
236.01O(1)(c), which provides fur a vacancy upon
conviction of an infamous crime and is self-
executing, because Mr. Fehl had his day in court
and no further action was needed to create a
)
3-12
County Structure-Powers and Limitations/~3.46
)
vacancy. 177 Or at 206 and 209. Unfortunately,
the court also, without addressing the
constitutionality of other causes fOr vacancy under
ORS 236.010, construed the statute to be fully
se1f~ecuted.
The attorney general, however, has had more
difficulty. In 1955 he wrote that ORS 236.020
was unconstitutional because in his opinion OR
CONST art VII,.fi6 set fOrth exclusive grounds fur
removal, and that until a court pJ:"QCPMing had
been successfully prosecuted, no removal could
take place. 27 OP An'y GEN 173, 174-175 (Or
1955).
Home rule counties may provide in their
charters when an office becomes vacant and how
the vacancy should be filled. This authority comes
from OR CoNST art VI ~10, which provides that
a charter may presaibe the ~ election, or
appointment, qualifications, tenure, etc. of county
officers. As a' later amendment to the
Constitution, OR CONST art VI, ~ 10 \Wuld govern
in the event of a conflict with OR CONST art VII
(amended), fi6. In re Fadeley, 310 Or 548, _
P2d (1990).
3-13
tn
0::
W
1-,
0::
<(
::E:
o
W'
-I
::)
0::
W
:E
o
:I:
Z
o
C)
w
0::
o
u.
o
z
o
tn
-
0::
<(
Q.
:E
o
o
,.
,
e
~
fIl
::l
2
::l
If
=
~
~
';
Cf.l
g
=
~
S
~....
1::
a~
....~
.05.-;r
lSe
-e 1 8:
z!~
~l
1:1.0
.a
l!~
S
blf
sj
~ 's
~
1
ii
~"
~e
-SO
o
~I
t~
~~
u
... -
<;
5
...b::l
.! ~ .01_
i a.
z....
o 0
U
J J
f J 1 ~ f .1 !
~li ~11li
hill Il-ll-
'i~U :I~'I ~ iJ
< ~ m'~ 8 ~ 8 18 ~ ~
*t)*tS *~ *~
oS 1-8
~::l I
i~~ : 8
~ M N
......,. .,.
1
j:l.,
~
~ ~
\0
,~ J
!U
oIIft31
N ~oooo
~ ~~ .~~~
_ .~ t31_ ,~ A A
.~ Ifi .... ('f"\
~ e..! ~~~
..... ~~ ....""i
:! :!
U J
j:l., z
~
..!.
<
:i
Q
M
'"
::l
b o~
~eCSg.
8 Nt j
.e J
,.
~ !
t)
s.~ "
~Ia t M
Ij! j :1
~~.i ~ 8
iiH ~9~
'r;; ..0 go>. i
H~~ H.~I
8 ~ 5Oo~oSZ ~
*t)eS*O*lii
g
J'~ >. <<s ~
g Hl~
= ~a..o8
:!
b'~
~ l ~
~g~
1 00
"B1] ~
~ ~~
~ ~ ~
:!
]
Cf.l
z
t) ~
a~ :~
< ~
~
'"
o
:a
iii'
t'f'l
~
iil
!
. .. .. - - - - --- .-.
g
c2 't~
g .
li .
ie-a
l! ~ t\~
>. 1:$ i~
v:i'~_r;::o
-=e2
~i~~
coG-g
f g..~ =
.d I JU
1 ti 1 J 8 .& ~
.88 U .,1'0:=]
~] ~ .8' if e u
6 ca ::l;~~
rf' e g.j-g~
~J i ~s~s.
.~ j,[ll n.g -! ~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ iia .~ :g
**fI)* la**"B=
~
2 >.
>. 0_..0
..0 1:$ R 0 ..6 1l
ljif.B ~~li~
~~i~ I ~i]] I
~
-
00
" t)-
~ .~~
~ ~ 'i
~ ~""i
~
..,
~
M
N
~-
o ~~ ~
~ ~.@
~
Jlhr j1hh
~ F-i fI) fI) ~ F-i 8 fI)
8
j:l., z
J
..!.
<
M
....
....
d-
N
a,
~
~
t)
J
..!.
<
l'fl
~
a
~ :a
;i i
.... ..,
\0
N
"
~
I
o
iii
f
8
~
II
-~
~i
i
:t l "4 i ~ ~ ~ ~
C) N .."
,~ !f N l:I
e: i f1 ~ It .g n
N i 00 i3 ~ e. ~ g
.. ., l:I
., go ~
l:I =- l:I
n
o 0
VI W VI VI [r;:t:
tl 0 0
- I: .
o l:I
, ~~
:I
~ > > ~ > ~: >
...... ...... t:I
t:I E~ f t:I E~ . t:l"
t;. t;. ~: IE
!3'. 8'. (')
(') (') -
lit n lit n ~It
.
~:?
- ti-
z z z z i=
" = ~
0
>~ [ ~~ ~~ of
I ~I Bt:J
e:~ ~ ~ Il_
g . g . ;.a
"1 "1 "1
&
~
~ ~ ~ -< !~
z:r=
.~
-
0
"'
~ ....t%j - !fPU ~
< ~W ~ ~< ~~
- o It
\0 W l:t. \0. 18.- -
~ < 0\< \0 \0 'a~
n ~ n, Z ~ ~ &:1
~ -
fg ~~
00 - S,[w 00 ,
~ 0 \0' n .
l:I 0
~.~ po....
.... Ro
8
n
8.n
It =-
Z Z Z Z 0.,
....::1
tl:In
e:"'
Q
QO"~8tOif 8g"~!~ 8 ~ 8 f:, ~ l!.Ur r=
....[~ ~~9 ~~t-i~ s I;~ g.og ~ g 0
.g .&. i' 8" ! ~ t:j ! 8!-i f' n
.- ~! ~
ff = t!.
1:1 i ~a' n 00" ~O"l:I < ~
....=-: ~~ .5
a (') 6' '< I
.. (
..
Uti ji~f~f~ ~t.)*~** [*S'**
~~foif~ ~~~f&
~ I~i l:t. .s 0 f.
~ a (') ~!lir .a
ajBJ. ~J ~ j l! I ft.)(i lit 0 b 8] ft
- ~ :i. [1. ~ ~
E: ~ n I ~ n I t ~ . .,
~ ~ ~ ~o-.i' H~ii o 0 . 8
8 . ~ < 8 8l
" ~ ~ .... 8. 0 ,.. &
6 I 8_"0 n~R=-. ~
[' i' a 6' ~ [-si
t;l'i S' ~.
~, . s. g I ~ ~. 0" < j ~,
~ '< 0 -
~ t:l 0
~ Si 1 t f e
I
$ CIQ lit
, .
--- - - . -
..
c-:
C
5
~
:b
;t
-
tJ.
C
2
C
.,.
C
:;t
rr
~
C
2
:J:
C
S
rr
~
c
r-
m
C":
:I
)>
~
..,
m
::tJ
CIJ
,.
--
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 22, 2001
TAPE
READING
0001 DATE. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN,
COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, OCTOBER 22,2001.
CONVENED. The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Jennings presiding.
0018 ROLL CALL.
Mayor
Councilor
Councilor
Councilor
Councilor
Councilor
Councilor
Jennings
Bjelland
Chadwick
Figley
McCallum
Nichols
Sifuentez
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Staff Present: City Administrator Brown, City Attorney Shields, Public Works Director
Tiwari, Community Development Director Mulder, Police Chief Null, Finance Director
Gillespie, Public Works Manager Rohman, Park & Recreation Director Westrick,
Assistant City Engineer Torgeson, City Recorder Tennant
0054 ANNOUNCEMENTS.
A) Closure of City Offices: City Hall and the Woodburn Public Library will be closed
on Monday, November 12th, in observance of Veteran's Day.
B) Rescheduled Date for Council Meeting: The regular meeting date of Monday,
November 12,2001 has been rescheduled for Tuesday, November 13,2001.
C) Public hearing: A public hearing will be held on November 26,2001, 7:00 p.m.,
regarding a Community Development Block grant.
D) Woodburn Public Library Activities:
November 27,2001, 7:00 pm, City Hall- "Day of the Dead" celebration
November 3, 10, 17 & 24, 2001, 11 :30 am - Spanish Storytime
0128 APPOINTMENTS:
A) 9-1-1 Board: Mayor Jennings stated that he has appointed Councilor McCallum to the
9-1-1 Board of Directors.
B) Museum Committee: Mayor Jennings appointed Isaiah Constante to the Museum
Committee whose term will expire in September 2003. Mr. Constante is a junior at
Woodburn High School and is replacing Amber Velasco who graduated from Woodburn
High in June 2001.
C) Community Center Planning Committee: Mayor Jennings appointed Thomas
Albright to the Community Center Planning Committee. Mr. Albright is a junior at
W oodbum High School.
Page 1 - Council Meeting Minutes, October 22, 2001
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 22, 2001
TAPE
READING
0217 PROCLAMATION: NATIONAL WEEKEND FOR HEALING AND UNITY.
In response to President Bush's request, the Mayor proclaimed November 10 - 12,2001
as a Weekend for Healing and Unity in the City of Woodburn. Special programs to be
offered by the Recreation and Parks Department include 1) free admission to the Aquatic
Center for all service men and women and veterans; 2) special Aquatic Center admission
discounts for everyone; 3) special Aquatic Center activities and contests; and 4) free
registration for all service men and women and veterans of military service for a Spirit
Mountain trip on November 12th.
0357 PRESENTATION: WOODBURN POLICE CANINE PROGRAM.
Police Chief Null announced the implementation of the newest police program - Canine
Program - in which "Niko", a 4-year old German Shepard, will be the police dog used
under this program. He stated that the Woodburn Police Association had approached him
last year regarding the establishment of a canine program and they had offered to take this
program on as a community project. They established an "Adopt A Dog" program in
which citizens could donate funds to support this program. Local businesses and
organizations also participated in this fundraiser by providing cash, dog kennel,
equipment, and services. He stated that one of the largest contributors was the local
Eagles organization who took on a year-long fundraising project and they contributed
over $7,300 towards this program. This donation paid for the dog plus a majority of the
training costs. In recognition of the Eagles contribution, Chief Null presented Fred
Davis, Past President, and Roger Blomberg, current President, with a plaque expressing
the Police Department's appreciation for their contribution to the canine program.
Mr. Davis stated that he is a retired Air Force Sergeant and his past experience with
canines showed him how canines saved many lives which is why he is very supportive of
this program.
Chief Null also recognized Officer Jason Millican who took the canine program from its
original concept to reality and has put in many hours of his time in raising funds, program
development, developing policies and procedures, and training.
Chief Null then introduced Niko who will soon be certified and assigned to patrol with
Officer Millican. Niko will be cross-trained for drug searches.
The Chief also introduced Ray Reed who has been the chief trainer for Niko. Mr. Reed
has been a police dog trainer for approximately 24 years and he is assisted by his son
Ryan who has 11 years of experience in training.
Ray Reed stated that Officer Millican and Niko have done an excellent job. They have
completed all of their practical exams and the final written exam will be held on Tuesday,
October 23rd. He showed a video presentation with Officer Millican and Niko during
their training sessions and he explained the different training exercises that were
accomplished over the training period. These include hot track, cold track, building
search, high drive and obedience search, back transport, side transport, pursuit and
Page 2 - Council Meeting Minutes, October 22,2001
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 22, 2001
TAPE
READING
courage test, and a muzzle test. He stressed that Niko is a very sound, stable animal and
training ofNiko consisted of2 years in Germany followed by 2 months of initial training
in getting Officer Millican used to the dog and then progressing it forward from that point
towards certification. It was also noted that the dog does stay with the handler 7 days per
week, 24 hours per day, except for a 2-week period in which the handler is allowed to be
gone on vacation.
Mayor Jennings thanked Mr. Reed for his presentation and Officer Millican's initiative in
pursuing this program. He also thanked the Woodburn Eagles for their substantial
financial contribution to the program.
1712 CHAMBER REPORT.
Don Judson, Chamber Board President, reported on the following Chamber activities:
1) the new Leadership Youth Program began last Tuesday and 20 Woodburn High School
students (sophmores, juniors, and seniors) participated in this on-going series of
programs. The first session was on team building and learning about this program. The
purpose of this program is to teach youths who are willing to participate in future
community programs how to be leaders. He stated that the students had sent thank-you
notes to each speaker and included comments on each speaker's presentation.
2) the Open House for the new Visitor Center was held last Thursday and the 3 kiosks,
built by the boys at MacLaren, displayed brochures from numerous locations in Oregon.
3) Business After Hours will be held on November 15th at the new Tukwila Center of
Medicine beginning at 4:30 pm.
4) Chamber Forum will be held on November 2200 .
Mayor Jennings suggested that the Council to attend the Business After Hours program at
the new facility which is a state of the art medical center.
1976 CONSENT AGENDA.
A) Approve the Council minutes of October 8, 2001;
B) Accept the Planning Commission minutes of September 27,2001;
C) Accept the Library Board minutes of October 10, 2001;
D) Recreation and Park Board minutes of October 9,2001;
E) Community Center Planning Committee minutes of October 11,2001;
F) Leaf pick-up program status report; and
G) Claims for the month of September 2001.
FIGLEY/SIFUENTEZ... adopt the consent agenda as presented. The motion passed
unanimously.
Page 3 - Council Meeting Minutes, October 22,2001
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 22, 2001
TAPE
READING
2010 PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of Plan nine Commission denial of Subdivision #01-01
and Variance #01-06. "KALUGIN SUBDIVISION". located at 1810 and 1820 E.
Hardcastle Avenue.
Mayor Jennings declared the public hearing open at 7:35 p.m.. Recorder Tennant read
the land use statement required by ORS Chapter 197.
Community Development Director Mulder stated that this hearing is a result of an appeal
of the Planning Commission's decision to deny a 5-lot subdivision with 3 associated
variances. The variances are 1) allow 5 lots to access a private drive when 4 is the
maximum permitted, 2) private drive serving the subdivision to extend beyond the 150-
foot depth maximum to a depth of250 feet, and 3) allow 4 of the lots be created without
public right-of-way frontage and to be accessed by the private drive. The property is
located at 1810 and 1820 E. Hardcastle between Dunn Court and Orchard Lane. He
stated that staffhad recommended approval, however, the Commission decided to deny
the application since they felt that (1) the site should be served by a public street, (2) the
site should be developed to its intended residential density, (3) public right-of-way
extension should be further south on the property than what is currently proposed, and (4)
emergency access issues are of concern relating to the private drive. He reviewed the
Council's options as it relates to this appeal.
Mayor Jennings questioned if this was the same property in which a proposal was
previously before the Commission and Council because of right-of-way and easement
Issues.
Director Mulder stated that it is his understanding that this property did come before the
City as a comprehensive plan and zone change application to change the property
designation to high density residential. It was noted that the parcel to the west of the
subject property which abuts Hardcastle is not part of this project, however, this parcel
does provide part of the easement access to the subject property.
2965 Kevin Mayne, Attorney representing Lazar Kalugin (Applicant), stated that this property
was before the Council approximately 4 years ago and, at that time, the applicant was
proposing a plan amendment and zone change to multi-family residential and placing
apartments on the property. Since that proposal did not work out, the applicant began
looking at other options for developing the property which is zoned single family
residential. He stated that the subject property lies to the south of Hardcastle and that
Centennial Drive does dead-end about 80 feet east of the subject property. The Jaeger
property lies between Centennial Drive and the subject property and, in the
Transportation Plan, there is no plan for future extension of Centennial Drive. He stated
that there is a parcel located west of the subject property abutting Hardcastle Ave. which
was partitioned off several years ago and the property is owned by Mr. VanCleave. This
parcel has a 24 foot wide easement which is one of the reasons as to why a private drive
is being proposed by the applicant. The subject property is 170 feet wide and 550 feet
Page 4 - Council Meeting Minutes, October 22, 200 I
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 22,2001
TAPE
READING
long which does place constraints on the development of the parcel. It was noted that the
VanCleave property would still have approximately 20 feet of space between the
easement and the VanCleave home. Additionally, the proposal before the Council would
use only 17 feet of the 24 feet available. The applicant is proposing that one driveway be
constructed which would encompass a 24 foot paved surface within a 39 foot right-of-
way. After meeting with City staff, it was determined that it was not possible to put a
public street on this property since the code requires a thru street to have a 60 foot right-
of-way while a cul-de-sac requires a 50 foot right-of-way. Additionally, the 24 foot
easement on the VanCleave property cannot be dedicated to the City since the applicant
does not own the property. The easement can be used as a private drive under the terms
of the easement. The property owned by the applicant also has an existing house near the
east property line abutting Hardcastle Ave which led to further constraints regarding the
driveway. He stated that the proposed development plan would require 3 variances as
outlined by Director Mulder. In regards to access, it is proposed that the access directly
onto Hardcastle for the existing house would be eliminated and the access would be off of
the private drive. The depth of the lot is reason for the long private driveway and it
would include a turnaround at the end. Lastly, a variance would allow for creation of 4
lots without having public right-of-way frontage. They have tried to address some of the
Planning Commission concerns and they are proposing that, if the application is
approved, a right-of-way of 40 feet in width extending further down the middle of the
property and turns to the east so that it could eventually connect to Centennial Drive if the
Jaeger property is developed in the future. It was noted that Mr. Kalugin has been in
discussion with Mr. VanCleave regarding the purchase of the property and/or the
easement. Another concern related to emergency vehicle access and parking laws are not
enforceable on private driveways. The applicant is willing to install curb cuts for off
street parking and to post No Parking signs on the driveway. He reiterated that it has
been difficult to develop a plan that would be acceptable to the City due to the constraints
of the property.
It was noted that Mr. Kalugin has owned the property for approximately 8 years and he
has been looking at different ways to develop the land.
Councilor Bjelland stated that it looked like two of the lots are not really being planned at
this time to be developed as individual lots but being held in reserve for future
development. He questioned if any consideration had been given to putting in a private
street to serve lots 2 and 5 on the plan and reserving the other 2 lots to be accommodated
in a future development where a public street has been installed connecting to future
extensions of Centennial Drive or to E. Lincoln Rd.
4532 Attorney Mayne stated that Planning Commission did not feel that the plan provided for
an efficient use of the property and the problem facing the applicant is that it is unknown
if Centennial Drive will be extended to the west or to some other direction since it is not
included in the Transportation Plan.
Page 5 - Council Meeting Minutes, October 22, 2001
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 22, 2001
TAPE
READING
Councilor Figley expressed concern over the proposed length of the private driveway in
addition to the width and questioned where curb cutouts might be located in order to keep
the roadway open.
Attorney Mayne stated that an option available to the Council is to require more than the
1.5 parking spaces per household and the developer would need to provide the off-street
parking area.
5267 George Wilhelm, Wilhelm Engineering representing the applicant, stated that the
Planning Commission wanted a public right-of-way access onto Hardcastle and it
appeared during the hearing that the Commission was unaware that the applicant could
not provide the public right-of-way due to the easement that would needto be used by the
applicant. The applicant would be willing to dedicate right-of-way that is owned so that
in the future additional right-of-way could be dedicated in the event Centennial Drive is
extended in the future. Additionally, the proposed homes would have a 2-car garage and
driveways that would accommodate 2 cars. It was noted that the existing easement is all
located on the VanCleave property.
Mayor Jennings questioned if a water line would be looped for fire protection at the time
of development or for connection at some time in the future.
Public Works Director Tiwari stated that the developer is required to provide the
infrastructure so that a water line loop could be connected at a future date for fire
protection and water quality.
No testimony was given by proponents or opponents to the proposed subdivision.
Mayor Jennings declared the public hearing closed at 8:25 p.m..
6084 Councilor Nichols stated that he would like to see the water line looped at the time of
development as a condition of approval and he would be in favor of sending this proposal
back to the Planning Commission.
Attorney Shields stated that the application is subject to the 120-day rule and there is no
code provision to send this application back to the Commission. A final decision,
including an appeal to the Council, must be completed by November 18, 2001.
Councilor Figley stated that she concurred with the concerns of the Planning
Commission. In looking at the surrounding neighborhood and the lack of connectivity,
she feels that the site should be served by a dedicated public street due to the length and
number of parcels to be served. Overall in looking at the plan, she did not see it working
safety wise, design wise, connectivity wise, or in the larger picture of the surrounding
area. She agreed with the comments of several Planning Commission members and with
their decision.
Councilor McCallum stated that he is very concerned about developing property that
would take 3 major variances. Based on the discussion held during this meeting, he felt
that there are other options available to the developer to take care of some of the
variances which the City is not in the position to deal with. Even though the applicant
Page 6 - Council Meeting Minutes, October 22,2001
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 22, 2001
TAPE
READING
looks at developing property at a profit, the Council needs to also look at livable areas for
residents within the City.
Mayor Jennings stated that the Council has turned down proposed developments in the
past due to the number variances and density issues. He is also concerned about parking
issues on private driveways since the Police Dept. does not have the authority to enforce
parking regulations on a private driveway. Another concern involves future looping of
the water lines along with obtaining required easements.
Tape 2
Councilor Bjelland stated that he does have a concern regarding the proposed design of
the layout. He suggested that if the proposal would provide for a private drive with 2
homes most of the problems raised by the Planning Commission and Council could be
eliminated. In his opinion, he could not see where any public right-of-way would be
feasible with an access to Hardcastle unless an existing home was torn down. Therefore,
looking at the private driveway as an outlet for Centennial Drive is not a feasible
scenario. The only way Centennial Drive would provide a roadway loop is to go south
through the property adjoining Centennial Drive and coming out onto E. Lincoln Road.
This scenario would allow the applicant to develop a portion of the property and get 2 lots
and still leave a fairly significant size property which could be subdivided in the future in
a manner that would allow for better utilization of the property.
Councilors Sifuentez and Chadwick stated that they concurred with the findings of the
Planning Commission.
0284 FIGLEY/SIFUENTEZ... concur with the Planning Commission's final order, deny
Subdivision #01-01 and Variance #01-06, and instruct staff to prepare an ordinance to
substantiate their decision. The motion passed unanimously.
0316 COUNCIL BILL 2353 - ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING
DESIGNATION ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3002 STACY ALLISON WAY
(.9 ACRE STRIP OF LAND LOCATED ON THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF
TAX LOT #1200) FROM MARION COUNTY URBAN TRANSITION FARM
(U'fF) TO CITY COMMERCIAL GENERAL DISTRICT (CGl.
Councilor Chadwick introduced Council Bill 2353. Recorder Tennant read the two
readings of the bill by title only since there were no objections from the Council.
Mayor Jennings stated that this strip of land was included in the compulsory annexation
ordinance, however, at the time of annexing the parcels, the Council did not change the
land use zones.
On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Jennings declared
Council Bill 2353 duly passed.
Page 7 - Council Meeting Minutes, October 22, 2001
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 22, 2001
TAPE
READING
0436 COUNCIL BILL 2354 - RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A NEW SCHEDULE
FOR WATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES AND AMENDING
RESOLUTION 1079.
Council Bill 2354 was introduced by Councilor Chadwick. The bill was read by title only
since there were no objections from the Council. On roll call vote for final passage, the
bill passed unanimously. Mayor Jennings declared Council Bill 2354 duly passed.
0482 COUNCIL BILL 2355 - RESOLUTION ENTERING INTO A DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT WITH M C BUILDERS. INC.. HERITAGE MEADWOS. LLC
AND HIDDEN CREEK PROPERTIES. LLC (Vanderbeck Lane improvements).
Council Bill 2355 was introduced by Councilor Chadwick. Recorder Tennant read the
bill by title only since there were no objections from the Council. On roll call vote for
final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Jennings declared Council Bill 2355
duly passed.
0529 ACCEPTANCE OF SIDEWALK EASEMENT: W. HAYES STREET.
Staff recommended the acceptance of a sidewalk easement from the Woodburn School
District for the installation of a new sidewalk on the south side of W. Hayes Street from
Cascade Drive to the Nellie Muir Elementary school parking lot.
FIGLEY/SIFUENTEZ... accept the sidewalk easement granted by the Woodburn
School District. The motion passed unanimously.
0560 CONTRACT AWARD: SIDEWALK AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS
ON W. HAYES STREET.
Bids for alterations to an existing storm drain and the construction of a sidewalk along W.
Hayes Street were received from the following contractors: Gelco Construction, Inc.,
$13,010.00; Three Sons Concrete, $14,868.00; Zink Commercial Contractors,
$16,415.00; KJS, $16,738.00; Axis Curb, $17,285.00; and D & A General Contractors,
$18,195.00. Staff recommended the acceptance of the low bid from Gelco Construction
of which the Woodburn School District will pay the City $10,186.00 for the sidewalk
construction and the City will pay the remaining balance for the storm drain
improvements.
FIGLEY/SIFUENTEZ... award the contract for sidewalk and storm drain improvements
on W. Hayes Street to the lowest responsible bidder, Gelco Construction Inc., in the
amount of $13,010.00. The motion passed unanimously.
0608 BID AWARD: PURCHASE OF USED VAN (Bid #22-07),
Bids for a 1998 or newer used minivan with less than 40,000 miles were received from
the following vendors: Hubbard Chevrolet (2001 Chevrolet Astro), $14,737.00; Canby
Page 8 - Council Meeting Minutes, October 22, 2001
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 22, 2001
TAPE
READING
Ford (2000 Ford Windstar), $15,500.00; and Hershberger Motors (2000 Dodge Caravan),
$15,979.00.
FIGLEYINICHOLS.... award bid #22-07 for a used van to the low bidder, Hubbard
Chevrolet, in the amount of$14,737.00 plus DMV and document fees. The motion
passed unanimously.
0635 CONTRACT AWARD: W. LINCOLN STREET STORM DRAIN PROJECT (Jlid
#22-16).
Bids were received from the following contractors: Valley Pacific Construction,
$221,764.30; Dunn Construction, $229,421.00; Canby Excavating, $267,850.00;
Robinson Construction (RCI), $288,577.00; Saunders Company, $350,770.00; Kasey
Cooper Excavation, $394,786.61; Kyllo Construction, $313,658.00; New West
Constructors, $374,057.00; Emery & Sons Construction, $345,414.25; Gelco
Construction, $341,101.00; Kerr Contractors, $317,127.00; and R & G Excavating,
$346,043.00. Staff recommended that the bids be rejected and re-advertised in order to
clarify the specifications of the PVC pipe.
FIGLEYINICHOLS... reject all bids for W. Lincoln Street storm drain project and direct
staff to issue a call for rebid after specification clarification. The motion passed
unanimously.
0658 CONTRACT AWARD: MODIFICATION OF BUILDING LOCATED AT 347
FRONT STREET. .
Bids for modifications to the City owned building located at 347 Front Street (formerly
known as the Salud building) were submitted from contractors for a one-story
modification and a two-story modification. The results of the bids are as follows:
One-story modification: First Cascade Corp., $228,354.00; All Oregon Construction,
$263,221.00; CMJ Construction, $265,361.00; and Borg Construction, $479,000.00.
Two-story modification: First Cascade Corp., $244,888.00; All Oregon Construction,
$286,021.00; CMJ Construction, $315,765.00; and Borg Construction, $500,000.00.
Mayor Jennings stated that the bids were lower that anticipated, therefore, it will allow
for the retention of a two-story building.
FIGLEYINICHOLS...conditionally award the contract for building modifications at 347
Front Street, the two-story option, to the lowest responsible bidder First Cascade Corp., in
the amount of $244,888.00, and authorize the City Administrator to execute the contract
after terms for fascia installation and salvage operation are mutually agreed upon.
Mayor Jennings stated that, once the contract is let, the work will soon begin and it is
anticipated that it will be completed by the end of February 2002.
Administrator Brown stated that the bid is within the $300,000 budget, however, there
will be more costs involved which may bring the total cost of the project close to the
$300,000 budget amount. The bid submitted by First Cascade Corp. does not provide for
Page 9 - Council Meeting Minutes, October 22,2001
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 22,2001
TAPE
READING
any credit for salvage value and staff will need to come to terms with the contractor on
this issue. He stated that this bid will provide a square block box that will be weather
tight and sound, and an additional expense will be incurred to obtain an architectural
design that would fit within the building structure to make the entrance more attractive.
There is a $30,000 allowance provision built into the bid that should take care of some of
the structural issues that will surface when work is in progress.
Councilor Bjelland questioned ifthe end product would be a basic shell on both floors.
Administrator Brown stated that the building will be a shell with the retention of the 2nd
floor elevator shaft. At this time, the intent is to leave the 1st floor open in a gallery
fashion to house the museum activities while the 2nd floor will be a combination of city
office space and potential rental office space to complementary types of public
businesses. Staff will be looking at a combination of grants and future budgetary requests
to make the building habitable for the various uses.
The vote on the motion to conditionally award the contract to First Cascade Corp. passed
unanimously.
1178 CONTRACT AWARD: WEST HAYES STREET PEDESTRIAN CROSSING (Bid
#22-12).
Bids for the installation of a pedestrian crossing warning signal were received from the
following contractors: Electrical Construction Co., $19,085.00; and Cherry City Electric,
$23,647.00. Staff recommended acceptance of the low bid from Electrical Construction
Co. which was less than 1 % above the engineer's estimate of$18,963.00.
FIGLEY/SIFUENTEZ.... award the construction to Electrical Construction Co. for the
installation of a pedestrian crossing warning signal at the intersection of Settlemier and
West Hayes in the amount of$19,085.00.
1226 ALLEY CLOSURE REOUEST: DOWNTOWN ALLEY AT HAYES STREET.
The Woodburn Elks Lodge has requested closure of the alley for Saturday, October 27,
2001, from 4:00 pm to 8:00 pm for the purpose of setting up a BBQ unit for cooking.
The event will be a recognition dinner for Woodburn and Hubbard police officers and
Marion County Sheriff deputies.
FIGLEYIBJELLAND... approve the alley closure of Hayes Street for Saturday, October
27,2001, from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.. The motion passed unanimously.
1267 LIOUOR LICENSE APPLICATION: ELMER'S RESTAURANT (255 Arney Rd)
Staff recommended the approval of a full on-premise liquor license submitted by WMC
Inc. for Elmer's Restaurant.
FIGLEY/SIFUENTEZ... approve a full on-premise liquor license for Elmer!s
Restaurant. The motion passed 5-1 with Councilor Nichols voting nay.
Page 10 - Council Meeting Minutes, October 22,2001
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 22, 2001
TAPE
READING
1286 DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATE - LEAGUE OF OREGON CITIES
ANNUAL CONFERENCE.
Mayor Jennings stated that the City is required to provide the League with the name of
the City's voting delegate prior to the conference date. He appointed Councilor
McCallum as the voting member and Councilors Sifuentez and Chadwick be appointed as
alternates.
It was the consensus of the Council to accept the appointments as designated by the
Mayor.
1362 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS.
A) Site Plan Review #01-10 for Phases II and III of Wood bum Company Stores:
Mayor Jennings requested that the Council call this issue up for a public hearing since he
feels that there are some unresolved issues in the Planning Commission's dealing with
this site approval.
NICHOLSIFIGLEY... call Site Plan Review #01-10 for Phases II and III of Wood bum
Company Stores up for a public hearing and it be scheduled for Tuesday, November 13,
2001, 7:00 pm., in the City Hall Council Chambers. The motion passed unanimously.
1441 CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT.
Administrator Brown stated that he had several conversations with the Police Chief about
the concept of the Council giving the Police Chief or City Administrator permission to
authorize street closures since many of these requests come into the office just prior to
the need for the closure. He requested the Council to consider an ordinance change that
would allow the Police Chief to make those decisions either all of the time or under a
specified set of circumstances so that they would not need to come before the Council for
approval.
It was the consensus of the Council to allow staff to proceed with drafting an ordinance
amendment. Councilor McCallum requested that the Council be given a report when a
closure is granted. Councilor Bjelland also requested that, in the case of a denial, a
provision be included that would give the applicant a right to appeal the Police Chief's
decision.
1554 MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS.
Mayor Jennings announced that the Police Department has an informational flyer
available for the public that addresses issues relating to Anthrax.
Chief Null stated that flyer will be available at various locations such as City Hall, Police
Department, Library, Post Office, Schools, service clubs, and Senior Estates.
Councilor Bjelland stated that there are no final outcomes on the issues before the Mid
Willamette Area Commission on Transportation (MW ACn. The next meeting is
Page 11 - Council Meeting Minutes, October 22,2001
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 22, 2001
TAPE
READING
scheduled for Wednesday, October 24th, at which time the commission will attempt to
address concerns raised in the prioritization undertaken by MW ACT. There were 17
modernization projects before MW ACT of which 5 were fairly large projects and it was
decided to prioritize those projects separately from the other 12 projects. The large
projects were the Woodburn interchange~ YamhilllNewberglDundee project, 2 projects in
Polk County, and 1 project in Marion County. A decision had been made by the
commission to vote on these projects by assigning a numerical value based on the
perceived ranking of those projects for funding. The two primary projects - Woodburn
interchange and NewberglDundee - did not receive the high rankings as originally
anticipated. In the current ranking, the Woodburn project came out as #3 and the
NewberglDundee project came out as #4. The #1 and #2 projects were the 2 projects
submitted by Polk County. In analyzing the results, the 2 Polk County projects did
involve a number of deaths occurring in that area which carried a lot of weight from those
commission members who were not directly related to those projects. He stated that
ODOT staffwas also surprised with the outcome and they felt that the Woodburn project
should have been moved up to at least #2 in the presentation since neither project #1 or
#2 included any leverage or matching funds. He stated that he will continue to try and
get Woodburn's project pushed on to the next higher level and maybe, at that time, a
decision would be made to move it up before the Oregon Transportation Commission
(OTC).
He stated that Woodburn did have the #1 preservation project that being the Oregon
214/Woodbum/Mt. Angel highway project which would provide some roadway
enhancements on Highway 214.
Mayor Jennings reiterated that the City's project needs to be pushed to the next higher
level so that the members of that Commission can make a decision on the projects. It was
also noted that there needs to be a consensus of all 16 voting members of MW ACT and,
if there is no consensus, then a majority report and a minority report will need to be
prepared.
2305 Councilor Bjelland reported that approximately 100 flower baskets were hung throughout
the City.
Councilor Sifuentez encouraged the Councilors to attend the Woodburn Downtown
Association reception on Saturday, October 27th, beginning at 5:00 p.m.. She stated that
she was approached by patrons of the Aquatic Center on concerns regarding water
temperature and she will be discussing the concerns with Director Westrick.
Councilor Sifuentez questioned how the residents will receive information on the Leaf
Pick-up program.
Director Tiwari stated that the program, which has been in place for several years, will be
noticed in the Woodburn Independent and shown on the City's web-site. He reminded
the public that leaves should not be placed in the pavement area since the rain will cause
the leaves to be slick and dangerous to motorists and pedestrians. The street sweeper will
Page 12 - Council Meeting Minutes, October 22, 2001
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 22,2001
TAPE
READING
be picking up the leaves on a weekly basis between November 5th and December 15th.
Councilor McCallum stated that the Livability Task Force wanted to send out the rules in
the water bills so that residents can familiarize themselves with the program. He stated
that one of the concerns is that residents will bring the leaves from their backyard to the
curb in order to get the City to dispose of the leaves. He requested that residents utilize
other methods of disposing those leaves such as taking the leaves to the Public Works
storage facility located at 300 E. Cleveland, compo sting, or placing leaves in their yard
debris container which is pick-uped weekly by United Disposal.
Director Tiwari also reminded the public that, after the time has lapsed for the weekly
program pick-up, residents who deposit leaves in the street will get a citation for littering
in the public right-of-way.
2631 Councilor Chadwick stated that she was pleased to see the newest member of the Police
Department (Niko) and feels that the City will benefit from the canine program.
Mayor Jennings stated that the Council will consider an ordinance to adopt the new
Council Wards at their November 13th meeting and new Ward maps will be available
following the adoption of the ordinance.
2740 Councilor Figley thanked the Public Works Department for submitting the W. Hayes
StreetlSettlemier Avenue pedestrian crossing project for Council action. She also
questioned the placement of traffic counters throughout the City.
Public Works Manager Rohman stated that the City is in the process of updating figures
for the Transportation Systems Plan. As a result, the consultants who do the traffic model
have offered to update the model which involves updating the traffic counts. The cost for
the traffic counts are being paid for by the consultants.
Councilor McCallum stated that he had attended a leadership program on terrorism which
was put on by Marion County Sheriff Raul Ramirez. He felt that there were several
excellent speakers from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the military, Emergency
Management Services, Public Heal~, and Red Cross. The basic message in the
Proclamation which was read at this meeting was stressed by the speakers It was noted
that federal, state, and local agencies and organizations are more aware of what is going
on and how to deal with it than they were prior to September 11 tho He also stated that
Attorney General Hardy Meyers was in attendance at the program and he put out a
warning to all citizens that there are a number of schemes going on in the United States
relating to people trying to sell products as a result of the terrorist activites and consumers
need to know who they are transacting business with before they make a purchase.
He also stated that he had attended the Open House at the new Tukwila Medical Center
last week and the new center is an excellent facility and a beautiful addition to
Woodburn.
3100 Mayor Jennings stated that Attorney Shields has informed him that there is no need for an
Executive Session.
Page 13 - Council Meeting Minutes, October 22, 2001
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 22,2001
TAPE
READING
3128 ADJOURNMENT.
MCCALLUMlNICHOLS... meeting be adjourned. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m..
APPROVED
RICHARD JENNINGS, MAYOR
ATTEST
Mary Tennant, Recorder
City of Woodburn, Oregon
Page 14 - Council Meeting Minutes, October 22, 2001
8A
COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 15, 2001
TAPE
READING
0001 DATE. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN,
COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, OCTOBER 15,2001.
CONVENED. The workshop convened at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Jennings presiding.
The purpose of the workshop was to discuss policy issues associated with the planning,
siting, financing, and construction of a new community center.
0020 ROLL CALL.
Mayor
Councilor
Councilor
Councilor
Councilor
Councilor
Councilor
Jennings
Bjelland
Chadwick
Figley
McCallum
Nichols
Sifuentez
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Staff Present: City Administrator Brown, City Attorney Shields, Recreation & Parks
Director Westrick, Community Development Director Mulder, City Recorder Tennant
Community Center Planning Committee Members Present: David Vancil, Patty
Eammons, Sharon Felix, Butch Flomer, Preston Tack, Joan Garren
Also Present: Randy Saunders -RSS Architecture
Mayor Jennings stated that the Council's initial direction to the Committee was to look at
sites already owned by the City and, as a result, placed restrictions on the Committee
during the initial planning stages for a new Center. He stated that this workshop was
called for the purpose of discussing policy issues that may affect the decisions made by
the Committee.
Plannine:
Discussion was held regarding the population base to utilize since this figure will
determine the size of the facility to meet community needs for a specified period of time.
Patty Eammons stated that the Committee fIrst looked at what size of Center the
community would be able to support at the population level which now exists. She stated
that larger cities have more than one Center and it may mean that in the future, as
Woodburn grows, a second Center will be needed to serve the community.
Councilor Figley stated that her concern is that this project needs to be a Center that will
absorb some additional growth and, in her opinion, needs to be more expansive than the
original concept outlined by Committee Chair Flurry Stone and yet less than the total
Page 1 - Council Workshop Meeting Minutes, October 15,2001
8A
COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 15, 2001
TAPE
READING
picture which involves all 3 phases.
Discussion was held on the various phases with Phase I being an activity center with
similar uses to what the existing center has done in the past, Phase II being a pavilion
which would provide an area large enough to include a gym, and Phase III being a
Performing Arts Center. It was noted that Phase I is the only portion of this total project
that is being proposed at this time. Design of the new facility may allow for the Center to
be used on a regional basis but ultimately it will be a City facility as the population of the
City grows. In regards to a Performing Arts Center, the concern is constructing a facility
prior to the time in which it will be used regularly and, in the meantime, utilize the High
Schoollectorium for special events since that facility will hold 350 persons. It was the
consensus of the group to plan a facilitY that would meet the City's needs to the year 2020
with a population of 40,000.
Facility Components:
Mayor Jennings stated that there are 9 gyms throughout the City, therefore, the new
facility does not need to include another gym. He did not object to a pavilion or mini-
conference center to accommodate a multitude of activities. He stated that the City needs
to continue working with the School District to make their gym and outdoor spaces
available for recreation programs.
Further discussion was held on a Performing Arts Center and it was noted that the
Committee is interested in pursuing this Phase at a later date when the need for a
Performing Arts Center has been demonstrated. It was noted that the location of a
Performing Arts Center does not need to be at the same site as a Community Center.
In regards to the types of uses to be included in the Community Center, it was consensus
to include an area for visual arts (such as art shows and exhibit space), temporary
museum space to showcase specific exhibits, a senior meal site area with a commercial
kitchen in an addition to a mini-kitchen for smaller functions, open space for a conference
that would have break-out rooms (estimated capacity of 400 persons), classrooms and
offices.
Side B
Administrator Brown stated that the tentative plan is to move the Recreation and Parks
offices to the Community Center since there is limited space in City Hall in which 2
employees no\V, have office space and it would be beneficial to centralize the offices to
house administration and leisure services.
It was suggested that the City contribute some budgetary funds to offset costs associated
with the floor space required for staff offices. It was felt that a contribution from the City
would be a positive marketing tool in order to get the voters to approve a bond issue.
Page 2 - Council Workshop Meeting Minutes, October 15,2001
8A
COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 15, 2001
TAPE
READING
Parking Requirements:
Mayor Jennings expressed concern regarding the parking requirements of a building the
size being contemplated by the Committee. He stated that the Committee is being given
the authority to look at sites not currently owned by the City for the purpose of locating a
site that meet building and parking requirements.
Committee member Flomer stated that the City property within Settlemier Park abutting
S. Front Street seems to be a good location for the facility since it would tie in the
Aquatic Center, improve the Front Street area, and bring Recreation and Parks
management in one central location.
Brief discussion was held regarding potential purchase of property in the vicinity of
Settlemier Park. Additionally, the suggested site location is on the corner of Front Street
and Oak Street and there would be no changes to the existing park area and ballfield. The
tennis court would need to be removed, however, it would be replaced at a different
location. Brief discussion was also held on the neighborhood impact.
Staff is in the process of obtaining appraisals on unused and under-used city property.
Funds from the sale of any property could be used toward the cost of a new Center.
It was noted that landscaping design is imperative to attract visitors and, if it is located in
the downtown area, there may be a way to work this project into the Urban Renewal
program if it is approved.
Further discussion was held on (1) the land use requirements of Phases I and II combined
and on the land use requirements if all 3 phases were placed on the site, and (2)
alternatives available. for future construction of a Performing Arts Center.
It was the consensus of the Council and Committee members that only Phase I and II
(activity center and pavilion) will be considered at this time and the Committee will bring
back information to the Council on the footprints and estimated cost for each phase.
It was noted that once plans are decided upon, the next step will be to determine financing
options.
Tape 2
Councilor Figley stated that the Council was concerned that the Committee was given
some specific direction that limited their ability to look at the overall picture and select a
site that would accommodate a facility that the Committee felt was needed for W oodbum.
Committee member Vancil suggested that a compromise for those citizens who are
interested in a Performing Arts Center would be to include funds in the bond issue that
would purchase a site for the Performing Arts Center.
It was agreed that this suggestion would be an option for the Committee to consider when
making a recommendation to the Council on financing issues.
Further discussion was held on potential site locations for the new Center.
Councilor Chadwick questioned if the K-Mart site had been considered for the
Community Center.
Page 3 - Council Workshop Meeting Minutes, October 15,2001
8A
COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 15, 2001
TAPE
READING
Committee member Vancil stated that the K-Mart building was 86,000 square feet which
is substantially larger than what would be needed for a Center. Additionally, the cost of
the facility is $6 million and it is not as accessible to the public since it is located in a
commercial area along a busy major highway.
In summary, the Committee will (1) combine Phase I and II into a new Phase I, (2) the
Performing Arts Center (formerly Phase III) will now become Phase II, (3) look at
constructing Phase I and Phase II at different sites, (4) look at constructing Phase I and
Phase II at the same site, and (5) provide footprints, costs, and recommendations to the
Council.
The workshop concluded at 8:46 p.m..
APPROVED
RICHARD JENNINGS, MAYOR
ATTEST
Mary Tennant, Recorder
City of W oodbum, Oregon
Page 4 - Council Workshop Meeting Minutes, October 15,2001
8B
WOODBURN PLANNING COMMISSION
October 11, 2001
CONVENED The Planning Commission met In a regular session at 7:00 p.m. with Chairperson Young
presiding.
ROLL CALL
Chairperson
Vice Chairperson
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Young
Cox
Fletcher
Miller
Lima
Mill
Bandelow
Lonergan
P
P
P
A
P
P
P
A
Staff Present:
Jim Mulder, Community Development Director
Scott Clark, Assistant Planner
Deniece Won, Assistant City Attorney
Chairperson Young provided an opening statement for Public Hearing.
MINUTES
A. Minutes of September 27. 2001 PlanninQ Commission MeetinQ
Commissioner Mill referred to his statement on page 5 and indicated his statement should read:
· Commissioner Mill said it appears to him as an amended application and not a new one. .. Vice Chairoerson
Cox noted correct spelling for .Martin ltY. Rohrer-. Additionally, he said Commissioner Mill's statement found
on page 5 should read" ....the economy has changed but at the end of July when this was approved..... He
also pointed to Commissioner Fletcher's statement contained on page 6 and stated it should read for
purposes of clarity: .He stated he would be persuaded by the arguments made so far to go ahead and
approve Staff's recommendation. "
Commissioner Mill moved to approve the minutes as amended. Motion was seconded by Commissioner
Bandelow, which carried.
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
None
COMMUNICATIONS
A. City Council MeetinQ of September 10.2001
PUBLIC HEARING
A. Variance 01-11. Sian Variance to add a 2' x 6' Danel to the existina detached business center
- sian and add an additional wall slQn on the north side of bulldlnQ located at 1014 NewberQ
Hiahwav 214. SlIverton Hospital Uraent Care Center. SlIvenon Hospital. applicant.
Staff read the applicable ORS Statement and provided a presentation as reflected in the Staff Report. Staff
recommended denial of the Variance requests because the variance criterion had not been completely
addressed and Staff does not support Increasing the nonconforming signage. Additionally, Staff feltthe other
signage alternatives had not been exhausted as far as what can go onsite with the existing situation.
Vice Chairperson Cox inquired whether the existing nonconforming freestanding sign was legal when it was
erected and subsequently became nonconforming because the sign ordinance was subsequently adopted
Planning Conunission Meeting - October II, 2001
Page 1 of 7
8B
or was it nonconforming from the beginning?
Staff stated there is no permit evidence that it was submitted.
Vice Chairperson Cox also inquired if we know the relationship between the adoption of the sign code and the
erection of the sign?
Staff replied a relationship is not known. He indicated the sign code was adopted in 1983.
Exparte Contacts
All of the Commissioners announced they have either visited or drove by the site.
Testimony by the Applicant
Bob Enqle. 610 Glatt Circle. Woodburn. OR stated he is appearing tonight on behalf of Silverton Hospital as
a member of their governing board and not as an Attorney. He commented Silverton Hospital has made an
incredible effort to establish services and a presence in the City of Woodburn. Mr. Engle indicated Silverton
Hospital determined an urgent care clinic was needed and necessary in the City of WOOdburn based upon
surveys and the amount of after hours contact in the Emergency Unit at Silverton Hospital. Additionally, he
stated Woodburn has no availability of physicians after hours or on weekends. He stated the clinic sits back
in away from the highway and not observable from either Highway 214 or Church St and therefore, needs
signage. Mr. Engle said the clinic will be open during the evening hours from 6:00 pm to 10:00 pm during
weekdays and from 8:00 am to 9 pm on weekends. He stated they are coming before the Commission tonight
asking for a Variance which lets them do something that the technicalities of the existing sign code may not
allow. The intent is that the urgency care clinic share the space where the Woodburn Physicians Clinic is
presently located. Mr. Engle explained there is still a need to have separate signage even though the space
will be shared. He stated you have to be able to tell people where the Woodburn Physicians Clinic is during
the day and where the Urgency Center is at night It was indicated by Mr. Engle that although he has infinite
respect for the Planning Department he totally disagrees that they have not met the criteria with the facts
presented. The difference of opinion. as he reads the report, between Staff and him seems to be whether or
not it is reasonable to ask all the existing tenants to reduce their signage to a size that will allow five plates
on the freestanding sign to be where four are right now. Mr. Engle said this is not fair, reasonable or practical
firstly because it is not fair to ask these other tenants to reduce their signage when there is a relatively high
speed arterial on 214 where people go by at a pretty fast rate. He also stated he does not think the tenants
would change the signage if he asked them. He reported Ed Krupicka owns the freestanding frame itself but
each one of the tenants has to go to a sign company and buy the plate that fits into that sign. The second
reason Mr. Engle thinks this is not reasonable is that Woodburn Physicians Clinic will only be at the present
location for another eight months. In an effort to resolve this with Staff so that they could come in with a
unified front. they will contract or promise Staff in writing that they will move the Woodburn Physicians Clinic
over to Woodburn Family Center at Glatt Circle and they will move the existing signs for Woodburn Physicians
by June 1. 2002. They will then restrengthen the freestanding sign back to the way it was and put their sign
in where Woodburn Physicians sign was and remove the small sign on the north side of the building leaving
only the Urgent Care Center sign. He pointed out the sign code allows for Variances to be granted for
temporary periods of time. In closing, Mr. Engle stated he feels they have met the criteria and they need a
Variance for eight months in order to be able to show the public where the Urgent Care Center is located. He
stated the Planning Commission has the power to grant it conditioned to their willingness and ability to sign
a guarantee that they will remove those signs by June 1, 2002.
Commissioner Mill asked Mr. Engle if they ever considered putting in a monument sign?
Bob Enale indicated he was not aware of what a monument sign is.
Staff interjected the sign code for the Commercial Office zone only allows one freestanding sign on the site.
He stated a Variance would also be needed to do what Commissioner Mill suggested.
Planning Commission Meeting - October 11, 200]
Page 2 of 7
8B
Commissioner Fletcher inquired if the Urgent Care Center will be opened to the general public?
Bob Em:1le replied affirmatively.
Commissioner Fletcher also asked if Silverton Hospital participates in all of the different types of care, Le.,
PPO's and HMO's?
Jeff Lorenz. Woodburn Physicians Clinic and Silverton Hospital. 1014 Newbera Hwv.. Woodburn, OR
remarked in terms of the patients insurance, they still may require the patient to obtain preauthorization but
they can call their physician and get referred to the Urgent Care Clinic and be treated. Mr. Lorenz explained
it is the Hospital's mission that all patients are welcomed whether they get paid or not. Additionally, he stated
they are in it for the long haul and are aware that it will not make them money but it is a service that the
community needs. Mr. Lorenz further remarked they want to advertise it as much as they can to get as much
as they can so they do not lose quite as much.
Commissioner Bandelow asked if the applicant has checked into the practicality of the proposed compromise
regarding the temporary sign without changing the base of the sign?
Jeff Lorenz replied it can be done according to the Salem Sign Company, whom originally erected the sign.
Commissioner Lima questioned if consideration has been taken as to changing the sign now to the Urgent
Care Clinic instead of adding another sign?
Jeff Lorenz responded they thought about it but that was not the preferred solution because the business is
going to continue to operate there.
Vice Chairperson Cox inquired whether the Urgent Care Clinic be opened longer hours during regular daytime
hours or will it be strictly an off-hour facility once the Woodburn Physicians Clinic moves over to the Glatt
Circle location?
Jeff Lorenz answered at this point it is slated to be an off-hour facility because they do not want to compete
with the primary care physicians that are operating during the day. He indicated they will probably use that
facility during the day, once the Woodburn Physicians Clinic moves to the Glatt Circle location, for
occupational health so they can provide services to the businesses, i.e., physicals, drug screens, worker's
compensation, that better tie in with urgent care and have urgent care at night.
Commissioner Lima asked what an 18 foot tall legal non-conforming sign is?
Chairperson Youna explained it is non-conforming to the sign code and is legal because it was erected before
the sign code was enforced.
Commissioner Lima questioned if the compromise to add sign(s) and remove them by June 1, 2002 is part
of their application?
Bob Enole replied this is not part of their application but their request to try to resolve this so they could come
before the Commission with a favorable recommendation. He remarked they are not expanding their request
by this modification but reducing the intensity of the request.
Commissioner Fletcher inquired if the Commission itself could grant that provision if they so voted as reflected
in the minutes and that would be binding?
Deniece Won responded the Variance procedures specifically allow you to condition a Variance and
specifically include limiting the duration of the Variance so the Commission could approve the request for a
specific period of time.
Planning Commission Meeting - October 11, 200]
Page 3 of 7
8B
Staff also mentioned the Planning Commission has to make the findings to grant the Variance and then the
Commission may limit the time period. He explained they can not just ignore the findings and decide to
condition it to allow it for a temporary period of time.
Testimony by Proponents
None
Testimony by Opponents
None
Discussion
Chairperson YounQ announced any comment made by any Commissioner or anyone on Staff should not be
construed that we would be opposed to any kind of urgent care facility. He stated he personally supports
Silverton Hospital 100%. Chairperson Young remarked he certainly appreciates what they are trying to do
for the community. He then closed the pubic hearing and opened discussion to the Commission.
Vice Chairperson Cox remarked he appreciates what Staff has done here. He related in the past he has some
times felt that Variance standards were pretty loosely applied but here we see an instance where Staff is really
looking at the requirements and saying that those requirements are not met. However, Vice Chairperson Cox
commented it would be an economic waste to expect anybody to change all five signs if there is a relatively
simple short term solution. He closed in saying he would personally approve the Variance with the conditions
suggested by the applicant.
Commissioner Bandelow agreed with Vice Chairperson Cox and commented it would create a hardship to
have to use the same sign. Additionally, she said there are some unusual circumstances here simply by the
very nature of this business. It is necessary that people who may be in somewhat agitated state need to be
able to find the place quickly. Commissioner Bandelow stated this is an exceptional business and not another
daytime business asking for something but a business that needs to be found at night and found quickly. She
felt it should be granted with a condition for a temporary basis for the eight months and then go back to the
sign at the size that it is right now. Commissioner Bandelow said she would vote in favor of the Variance
under those circumstances.
Commissioner Fletcher supported Commissioner Bandelow's argument.
Commissioner lima remarked there has been a long time need for urgent care in this town. He went along
with the approval of the Variance and suggested an addition be made to the conditions of approval to include
that they not include any other signs in the future for that location. Commissioner lima clarified Mr. Lorenz
mentioned they plan on using the facility in the future for other uses other than urgent care, leaving the door
open for them to return in the future and ask for additional signage. He stated he wants to prepare against
this now.
Vice Chairperson Cox questioned if we could limit the copy to advertise only an urgent care center on the
sign?
Deniece Won inte~ected deliberation needs to be given to that because that constitutes freedom of speech.
Staff suggested if the Commission decides to approve the Variance, they may condition that the Physicians
Clinic sign be removed at the end of one year and the Urgent Care sign may remain indefinitely. Therefore,
there would be no need to worry about changing copy on any of the signs but they would be able to continue
to change copy if tenants change. Regarding the freestanding stand, Staff indicated he is not sure what the
building code ramifications will be.
Deniece Won responded to Commissioner lima's suggestion to limit future Variances for additional signs.
She stated you can not constrain a future Planning Commission's decision.
Planning Commission Meeting - October 11. 200]
Page 4 of 7
8B
Commissioner Lima clarified his concem was the possibility of adding a fifth sign once the Woodbum
Physicians Clinic sign is removed.
Commissioner Mill expressed his concerns with being left with another existing sign where anything can be
put in once urgent care moves out some day. Secondly, he stated he is bothered with the precedent being
set by allowing an even more nonconforming sign issue than what we already have. He questioned if this may
be conditioned so that the sign be removed if urgent care moved out?
Deniece Won interjected it may be conditioned, if approved, that the additional sign is removed June 2002.
She stated from that point forward you are left with whether they legally have a right now in their
nonconforming use positions. Mrs. Won stated this can not be taken away from them.
Vice Chairperson Cox inquired ifthe existing Woodburn Physicians Clinic wall sign is a conforming legal sign?
Staff replied as far as the number of signs allowed, it is not a conforming legal sign because there are multiple
signs on the building.
Chairperson Youna questioned Staff if they feel the applicant's suggestion to remove the sign June 2002 is
a condition that could be applied or does Staff still view all of the criteria as not being met?
Staff answered Staff took a strict technical review of the merits of the application. He indicated there are
certainly circumstances in this situation which obviously make the basis that they are urgent care but there
was no guidance in the code that says that we should give preference to that type of situation or not. Staff
stated the Commission certainly may give preference.
Chairperson Youna asked legal counsel if the Commission would need to write, draft. mention, invent
language that would limit the sign size after June 1, 2002.
Deniece Won responded findings are needed addressing the criteria for the exceptional circumstances offered
by the Commission. Once the findings are changed, the Variance may be approved with the condition that
the signs will be removed by June 1, 2002.
Commissioner Mill clarified after June 1, 2002, the urgent care center sign will be removed and essentially
that same information would be moved down and would replace where the existing Woodburn Physicians
Clinic sign is now and the sign becomes the same height it is now.
Staff inquired what happens to the wall sign?
Vice Chairperson Cox replied the applicant's proposal is that on or before June 1, 2002 the existing Woodburn
Physicians Clinic wall sign would be removed leaving only the Urgent Care sign as the wall sign.
Commissioner Mill stated the findings would be as follows: . The applicant has made the case that there is an
unreasonable hardship given the location of the building and the fact that it's visibility is not well seen from
Highway 214, which is the main access to the building and the nature of the business which would gain urgent
care. The project will not be material or detrimental to the public welfare but, in fact, promotes public welfare.
There will be walk-in or panicked drivers which are going to want to find the sign because. people in a panic
have tunnel vision and they need to be able to see the sign. There is a panic factor that is being taken into
consideration. The project will not increase the traffic and will promote the welfare of the neighborhood. "
Commissioner Mill moved to approve the 2' x 6' addition to the freestanding sign located on Highway 214 on
a temporary basis to be removed June 30, 2002 and also approve the Urgent Care Center wall sign with the
understanding that the Woodburn Physicians Clinic wall sign will also be removed and requested Staff to
return with findings and final order at the next regularly scheduled meeting. Vice Chairperson Cox seconded
the motion. Motion unanimously carried.
Planning Commission Meeting - October JJ. 200J
Page 5 of 7
8B
Vice Chairperson Cox asked Staff not be discouraged that the Planning Commission went against their
recommendation tonight. He complimented Staff for a job well done and encouraged them to continue to look
at applications with a cold, hard eye. Vice Chairperson Cox commented if there is a sympathy factor or a
special community need to be applied, to allow the Planning Commission to do that.
Commissioner Mill concurred with Vice Chairperson Cox and also praised Naomi Zwerdling for a very well
written Staff Report.
B. Site Plan Review 01-01. Lot Line Adiustment 01-07 and Variance 01-12.102.082 souare foot
expansion of the existino Wal-Mart store located at 3002 StaCY Allison Way. Pacific Land
Desion. applicant (continued from the September 27.2001 Planninq Commission Meetinq).
Staff announced he received a letter from the applicant's attorney requesting a continuance to the next
regularly scheduled meeting in order to work out some details to the issue pertaining to the extension of
Evergreen Road.
Vice Chairperson Cox moved to continue the hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting in light of the
applicant's request. Motion was seconded by Commissioner lima, which unanimously carried.
Staff recommended the Commissioners keep the packet received for this hearing. He reported an addendum
to the Staff Report will be provided to the Commission.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
A. Final Order for Site Plan Review 01-10. amend condition of approyal #1 and condition of
approval #23 of Site Plan Review 00-18. Woodburn Company Stores. Craiq Realty Group.
applicant.
Vice Chairperson Cox inquired whether the findings and order been reviewed by legal staff?
Staff replied affirmatively.
Vice Chairperson Cox moved to adopt Final Order for SPR 01-10 as presented by Staff. Commissioner Lima
seconded the motion. Motion carried.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
REPORTS
A. Buildinq Activity for September 2001
BUSINESS FROM THE COMMISSION
Staff reported Carl Miller has resigned the Planning Commission due to family health problems.
Vice Chairperson Cox announced he will not be present at the next meeting.
Chairperson Younq asked the Mayor be encouraged to fill the existing Planning Commission vacancies so
that there may be a full Commission. He further commented all nine members are needed so that the voice
of the community can be truly reflected.
Staff indicated the Mayor has been having trouble filling the vacancies. He stated the positions have been
advertised but no applications have been received.
Commissioner Bandelow requested a copy of the ordinance passed at Monday night's City Council meeting
regarding fines imposed on those that do not comply with such things as the sign ordinance.
Planning Commission Meeting - October 11, 200]
Page 6 of 7
8B
Deniece Won remarked she is not up 100% up to speed with it because she did not participate in drafting the
ordinance. However, it is her understanding that a significant missing piece in the sign ordinance was in
enforcement where you could cite people but there was no penalty. She explained under a separate
ordinance we have now made penalties for civil infractions with the penalty being $500.
Commissioner Mill commented realistic enforcement for a citation that gets issued for minor violations are
nonexistent because of the fact that people do not want to write a $500 ticket for a relatively minor violation.
He stated the fine should be a realistic and enforceable amount.
Commissioner Bandelow reported there is another sign group on all of the parking signs in town held on with
tie wraps about 6 ft. high along Stacy Allison Way, Evergreen Road and on Settlemier Avenue.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Lima moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Fletcher seconded the motion. Motion
carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.rn.
/
IRPERSON
I (/(2(~1
DATE
ATTEST
Ji
Co
CitY,
dert
unity Development Director
Woodburn, Oregon
/0--25'" --01
Date
Planning Commission Meeting - October 11, 2001
Page 7 of 7
8C
Community Center Planning Committee
Minutes
October 25, 2001
1. Call to Order:
Joan Garren called the meeting to order at 7: 15
2. Roll Call:
Member: Joan Garren, Patty Eammons, Preston Tack, Tom Albright.
Staff: Randy Westrick, Jennifer Goodrick
3. Welcome of New Member: Tom Albright was welcomed by the group as the newest
member of the Community Center Planning Committee, appointed by Mayor Jennings at the
October 22 meeting of the City Council.
4. City Council October 15 Workshop Recap: Randy led into a discussion summarizing the
City Council workshop, and how the Community Center Planning Committee should proceed.
The main concern was that the CCPC did not want to put all the time and effort into a
recommendation and have the Council reject it. Several aspects of the work already done by the
CCPC and the work to be done in the next several weeks were discussed at length. The general
consensus was to approach the council with our recommendation, with the positive and negative
aspect of that choice clearly outlined, and with a list of alternatives, with their positive and
negative aspects clearly outlined. The CCPC will provide the City Council with the data to
make an informed choice, rather than provide them with a mandate. It was also decided by the
committee that the possibility of building a community center on the K-Mart site be explored,
since there has been a significant inquiry from the community in this regard. While the
Committee is doubtful that the K-Mart building would be affordable or feasible, the issue needs
to be addressed with research and hard numbers, Tather than with opinions.
The Committee reviewed the time line set by the City Council. The meeting schedule was
adjusted to fit the schedules of Committee, but the goals and objectives were agreeable to all
members present.
AlP CHECK LlSITING FOR OCTOBER 2001 8D
CHECK DEPARTMENT VENDOR NAME VENDOR DATE AMOUNT
NO NO
57281 POST MTR.VARIOUS US POSTAL SERV 020089 10/1101 $1,400.00
57282 SERVICES.VARIOUS ASSOC ADMIN 000562 10/2/01 $110.00
57283 PETTY CSH.VARIOUS CITY OF WOODBURN 015255 10/3/01 $155.26
57284 SERVICES.FI NANCE OMFOA 014360 10/4/01 $229.00
57285 SERVICES. WATER VALLEY MAILING 021044 10/4/01 $682.40
57286 SERVICES.REC BEST WESTERN NONE 10/8/01 $166.92
57287 SERVICES-PARKS WILDUFE SAFARI NONE 10/10/01 $185.00
57288 SERVICES.WATER VALLEY MAILING 021044 10/11/01 $618.00
57289 REI MBURSE.POLlCE JASON ALEXANDER 000120 10/11/01 $195.83
57290 VOl D VOl D VOID $0.00
57291 VO I D VOID VOl D $0.00
57292 VO I D VOID VOID $0.00
57293 REFUND. WTR/SWR LUCKEY CO NONE 10/15/01 $9.10
57294 REFUND- WTR/SWR SANDSTRUM HMS NONE 10/15/01 $88.08
57295 REFUND.WTRISWR WE BE CONST NONE 10/15/01 $23.14
57296 REFUND.WTRISWR JE CALCAGHO NONE 10/15/01 $35.29
57297 REFUND.WTRISWR LUCKEY CO NONE 10/15/01 $7.45
57298 REFUND.WTRlSWR MIKE CAFFERATA NONE 10/15/01 $36.95
57299 REFUND.WTR/SWR CENT EX HOMES NONE 10/15/01 $35.34
57300 REFUND.WTRlSWR WE BE CONST NONE 10/15/01 $7.45
57301 REFUND.WTR/SWR SHIRLEY ELLIOTT NONE 10/15/01 $4.16
57302 SUPPLIES. PARKS SCOREBOARD SALES NONE 10/15/01 $125.00
57303 SUPPLIES. POLICE OAKSTONE LEGAL NONE 10/15/01 $124.95
57304 REFUND.BUILDING ROBERT COLLOPY NONE 10/15/01 $65.01
57305 SERVICES. POLICE MT BACHELOR RES NONE 10/15/01 $858.00
57306 SERVICES.WATER AWNA 000665 10/15/01 $385.00
57307 SUPPLlES.POLlCE D&H TRADING NONE 10/15/01 $240.00
57308 REFUND. PARKS LATIN AMER CLUB NONE 10/15/01 $2,042.46
57309 SERVICES. POLICE NW COMPUTER TECH NONE 10/15/01 $258.00
57310 SERVICES. POLICE BENTON CTY SHERIFFS NONE 10/15/01 $50.00
57311 SUPPUES.ADMIN NANCY KIRKSEY NONE 10/15/01 $46.23
57312 SERVICES.PARKS GRASS HOPPERS NONE 10/15/01 $120.00
.
57313 SUPPLIES. WATER A&A DRILUNG 000010 10/15/01 $4,180.00
57314 SERVICES-ENG AEROTEK 000080 10/15/01 $320.00
57315 SERVICES. PARKS ALL OUT FI RE 000130 10/15/01 $380.65
57316 SERVICES. POUCE ANIMAL MED CL 000434 10/15101 $79.90
57317 SERVICES-VARIOUS ARCH WI RELESS 000535 10/15/01 $197.52
57318 SERVICES.WATER AWNA 000663 10/15/01 $10.00
57319 S~RVIC~S.PUB WKS AWWA 000665 10/15/01 $447.00
57320 SERVICES-POUCE BM CLEANING 001030 10/15/01 $200.00
57321 SUPPLIES-POLICE BATTERY SOL 001160 10/15/01 $332.83
57322 SUPPLlES.STREET BEN KO MATIC 001200 10/15/01 $399.98
57323 SUPPLI ES.L1 BRARY BI MART CORP 001275 10/15/01 $25.99
57324 SERVICES-COURT ALVINA BLAINE 001293 10/15/01 $320.00
57325 SERVICES.WWTP BOBS BACKHOE 001325 10/15/01 $4,732.50
57326 SERVICES. VARIOUS BOLDT CARLISLE 001345 10/15/01 $11,370.00
57327 SUPPLIES. POLICE BOCHSLER HARD 001359 10/15/01 $207.90
57328 SERVICES.PLANNING ROGER BUDKE 001580 10/15/01 $547.50
Page 1
8D
AlP CHECK LlSITING FOR OCTOBER 2001
57329 SUPPLlES.L1BRARY BUSINESS EQUIP 001628 10/11/01 $163.00
57330 SERVICES.FI NANCE CANBY TELEPHONE 002062 10/15/01 $39.90
57331 SERVICES. POLICE CASE AUTOMOTIVE 002190 10/15/01 $1,205.18
57332 SUPPLlES.L1BRARY CHILD'S WORLD 002453 10/15/01 $801.68
57333 RETAINAGE.ADMIN CITY OF WOODBURN 002526 10/15/01 $820.00
57334 SERVICES-COURT MARGOT COMLEY 002686 10/15/01 $50.00
57335 SERVICES-POLICE COMPAQ FIN SERV 002724 10/15/01 $118.54
57336 SUPPLIES-WATER CONS SUPPLY 002770 10/15/01 $154.78
57337 SERVICES-WWTP CORPINC 002879 10/15/01 $15,320.34
57338 SUPPLlES.L1BRARY CULTURGRAMS 002930 10/15/01 $107.34
57339 SERVICES. VARIOUS DAILY JOURNAL 003020 10/15/01 $911.63
57340 SUPPll ES.POLlCE DANNER SHOE 003036 10/15/01 $103.95
57341 SERVICES-STREET DE HAAS & ASSOC 003108 10/15/01 $145.75
57342 SERVICES.WWTP DEQ 003205 10/15/01 $1,011.50
57343 SERVICES-FINANCE DIRECT LINK 003240 10/15/01 $315.00
57344 SERVICES.ADMI N DORTIGNACQ & ASSOC 003258 10/15/01 $2,500.00
57345 SUPPLIES-LIBRARY EDUC CLEARINGHOUSE 004078 10/15/01 $34.75
57346 SUPPLIES-STREET EDWARDS EQUIP 004086 10/15/01 $453.39
57347 SERVICES-VARIOUS FEDERAL EXPRESS 005080 10/15/01 $34.60
57348 SERVICES-ADMIN FIRST CASCADE CORP 005130 10/15/01 $15,572.00
57349 SUPPLIES-WATER HAL TON CO 007046 10/15/01 $1,987.33
57350 SERVICES-VARIOUS HIRE CALLING 007240 10/15/01 $1,844.18
57351 SERVICES.ADMIN HUBERS CAFE 007331 10/15/01 $57.95
57352 SUPPlIES.WATER INDUSTRIAL GASKET 008074 10/15/01 $45.92
57353 SUPPlIES.WWTP IND WELDING 008100 10/15/01 $31.50
57354 SUPPLIES-LIBRARY INGRAM DIST 008116 10/15/01 $1,969.19
57355 SUPPLlES.WWTP ITT FL YGT CORP 008395 10/15/01 $4,445.00
57356 SUPPLlES-C STORES KEY BUSINESS PROD 010076 10/15/01 $244.47
57357 SUPPLlES.POlICE LAB SAFETY SUPPLY 011 024 10/15/01 $54.35
57358 SERVICES-VARIOUS LAWRENCE CO 011175 10/15/01 $200.00
57359 SUPPLI ES- WWTP LEICA GEOSYSTEMS 011189 10/15/01 $75.80
57360 REIMBURSE-LIB DONNA MELENDEZ 012420 10/15/01 $12.50
57361 SUPPLlES.VARIOUS METROFUELlNG 012448 10/15/01 $2,009.60
57362 SERVICES.WWTP MOLALLA COMM 012563 10/15/01 $74.85
57363 SUPPLIES-VARIOUS NATIONAL CHEM 013030 10/15/01 $1,313.85
57364 SERVICES-POLICE NORCOM 013198 10115/01 $22,536.92
57365 SUPPLI ES.WWTP NORTH COAST ELEC 013215 10/15/01 $126.37
57366 SUPPLlES-WWTP NORTHSTAR CHEM 013235 10/15/01 $2,262.70
57367 SERVICES.ENG NW GEOTECH 013287 10/15/01 $44.50
57368 SERVICES.VARIOUS NW NATURAL 013350 10/15/01 $3,254.96
57369 SUPPLlES.WWTP OFFICE DEPOT 014029 10/15/01 $74.76
57370 SERVICES-ENG ONSITE ENVI RON 014055 10/15/01 $389.05
57371 SERVICES.BUI LDI NG OR DEPT OF CONS 014199 10/15/01 $5,034.15
57372 SUPPLI ES-ATTY OR DMV 014240 10/15/01 $57.50
57373 SERVICES. STREET OR DEPT OF TRANS 014260 10/15/01 $18.19
57374 SERVICES-PARKS OR REC & PARKS 014431 10/15/01 $55.00
57375 SUPPLIES-POLICE OR SEC OF STATE 014480 10/15/01 $33.00
57376 SUPPllES.ATTY OREGON STATE BAR 014500 10/15/01 $70.00
57377 SUPPLlES.POLICE OR STATIONERS 014565 10115/01 $795.00
57378 SERVICES.WATER OTS WIRE 014680 10/15/01 $864.70
Page 2
AlP CHECK LlSITING FOR OCTOBER 2001 8D
57379 REIMBURSE.lIB MARY PARRA 015168 10/15/01 $188.81
57380 SUPPLIES.WATER PAULS SMALL MTR 015175 10/15/01 $25.30
57381 SERVICES. POLICE PAULS AUTO BODY 015185 10/15/01 $194.00
57382 SERVI CES. FINANCE POLAR SYSTEMS 015370 10/15/01 $2,940.00
57383 SERVICES.VARIOUS PORT GEN ELEC 015420 10/15/01 $40,987.61
57384 SUPPLlES.PARKS POSITIVE PROM 015464 10/15/01 $146.88
57385 SUPPLlES.STREET PRIER PIPE 015515 10/15/01 $67.15
57386 SERVICES.ADMIN PROF SERV I NO 015550 10/15/01 $655.75
57387 SERVICES. POLICE PURDYS AUTO 015667 10/15/01 $525.00
57388 SERVICES. VARIOUS QWEST 016201 10/15/01 $194.50
57389 SERVICES. VARIOUS QWEST 016202 10/15/01 $3,788.21
57390 SUPPLIES. POLICE RADIO COMM SERV 017027 10/15/01 $107.00
57391 SUPPLIES. POLICE RADIO SHACK 017030 10/15/01 $76.13
57392 SUPPLI ES. WATER RADIX CORP 017035 10/15/01 $1,904.00
57393 SUPPLlES.WWTP ROGERS MACH 017297 10/15/01 $330.85
57394 SUPPLI ES.ADMI N ROTHSIGA 017340 10/15/01 $9.76
57395 SERVICES.WATER SLATER COMM 018522 10/15/01 $64.90
57396 SERVICES. POLICE SOS LOCK SERV 018608 10/15/01 $45.00
57397 SUPPlIES.PLANNING STATESMAN 018760 10/15/01 $28.80
57398 SERVICES.WWTP SUN RIVER 018848 10/15/01 $75.00
57399 SUPPlIES.VARIOUS CORPORATE EXPRESS 019100 10/15/01 $403.10
57400 SUPPLlES.VARIOUS UNOCAL 020010 10/15/01 $350.94
57401 SERVICES. VARIOUS UNITED DISPOSAL 020020 10/15/01 $2,887.35
57402 SERVICES.RSVP US POSTAL SERV 020090 10/15/01 $677.15
57403 SERVICES.FI NANCE VP CONSULTING 021260 10/15/01 $3,390.00
57404 SUPPLlES.ATTY WEST GROUP 022160 10/15/01 $776.00
57405 SUPPLlES.VARIOUS WILCO FARMERS 022292 10/15/01 $900.87
57406 REIMBURSE.PARKS KATHY WILLCOX 022390 10/15/01 $134.30
57407 SUPPlI ES. PARKS WITHERS LUMBER 022445 10/15/01 $16.626.31
51408 SERVICES.VARIOUS WBNINDEPENDENT 022630 10/15/01 $367.00
57409 SUPPLlES.WWTP WBN RENT ALL 022708 10/15/01 $261.00
57410 SUPPLIES.VARIOUS YES GRAPHICS 024025 10/15/01 $466.50
51411 REI MBURSE.CQURT JANICE ZYRYANOFF 025060 10/15/01 $155.02
57412 REI MBURSE.RSVP BILL FAULHABER 035240 .10115/01 $35.00
57413 REIMBURSE.RSVP MARLENE ROGERS 035620 10/15/01 $35.00
57414 PAYROLL. VARIOUS OREGON PERS 014424 10/16/01 $95.61
57415 SERVICES.WATER VALLEY MAILING 021044 10/18/01 $514.00
57416 PETTY CSH.VARIOUS CITY OF WOODBURN 015255 10/18/01 $123.52
57417 VOID VOID VOID $0.00
57418 VOID VOID VOID $0.00
57419 VOID VOID VOID $0.00
57420 SERVICES.ADMIN LATINO DE HOY NONE 10/19/01 $350.00
57421 SUPPLlES.PARKS AMERISOURCE PUB NONE 10/19/01 $299.95
57422 SERVICES. POLICE PET VILLAGE NONE 10/19/01 $40.00
57423 SUPPLlES.L1BRARY TSUFIT NONE 10/19/01 $19.00
57424 SUPPLlES.PUB WKS ALLAN BLOCK CORP NONE 10/19/01 $50.00
57425 SUPPLlES.L1BRARY MARY KISH NONE 10/19/01 $73.95
57426 SUPPLlES.L1BRARY LONG ISLAND COAL NONE 10/19/01 $35.00
57427 SERVICES.PARKS MUL T ATH CLUB NONE 10/19/01 $170.50
57428 REFUND. POLICE ACCID REPORT NONE 10/19/01 $3.00
Page 3
8D
AlP CHECK LlSITING FOR OCTOBER 2001
57429 SERVICES-POLICE MID WIll VLY NONE 10/19/01 $30.00
57430 SERVICES.MUSEUM PETE PETROWSKI NONE 10/19/01 $50.00
57431 SUPPLlES.ENG ENR MAGAZINE NONE 10/19/01 $77.00
57432 SUPPLIES. WATER A&A DRILLING 000010 10/19/01 $1,090.00
57433 SUPPLlES.WWTP ABIQUA SUPPLY 000034 10/19/01 $595.00
57434 SERVICES.ENG AEROTEK 000080 10/19/01 $160.00
57435 SERVICES-WATER AMTEST OREGON 000400 10/19/01 $570.00
57436 SUPPlIES.WATER A.1 COUPLING 000409 10/19/01 $44.71
57437 SERVICES-WATER ARAMARK UNIFORM 000534 10/19/01 $28.46
57438 SERVICES.WWTP ARCH WI RELESS 000535 10/19/01 $79.20
57439 SERVICES.WWTP AT&T 000623 10/19/01 $15.49
57440 SERVICES. POLICE LANGUAGE LINE SERV 000659 10/19/01 $785.59
57441 SERVICES. PARKS BARK BOYS I NC 001138 10/19/01 $2,430.00
57442 SUPPLIES-LIBRARY BIMART CORP 001275 10/19/01 $60.31
57443 SERVICES-VARIOUS BIO.MED TESTING 001280 10/19/01 $174.00
57444 SUPPLlES.C GARAGE BLAST CLEAN I NG 001298 10/19/01 $26.00
57445 SUPPLlES.POLlCE BLUMENTHAL UNIF 001310 10/19/01 $116.25
57446 SUPPLI ES-L1 BRARY BOOK WHOLESALERS 001350 10/19/01 $56.30
57447 SERVICES-POLICE BULLARD,SMITH 001584 10/19/01 $38.41
57448 SUPPlIES.BUllDlNG BUILDING TECH BOOK 001587 10/19/01 $92.15
57449 SERVICES.L1BRARY CHEMEKETA CC 002410 10/19/01 $2,597.70
57450 SERVICES.WWTP CHERRY CITY ELEC 002424 10/19/01 $380.00
57451 SERVICES.WWTP COFFEY LAB 002630 10/19/01 $3,355.00
57452 SUPPLIES-WATER CONNEY SAFETY 002760 10/19/01 $42.12
57453 SUPPLlES.STREET CONST MACHINERY 002775 10/19/01 $16.92
57454 SUPPLlES.POLlCE CRYSTAL SPRI NGS 002919 10/19/01 $56.00
57455 SERVICES- TRANS C.T.A.A 002923 10/19/01 $160.00
57456 SUPPLlES.FINANCE CTl CORP 002926 10/19/01 $362.23
57457 SERVICES. PUB WKS DAILY JOURNAL 003020 10/19/01 $321.75
57458 SUPPLI ES.ADMI N DATA911 SYSTEMS 003042 10/19/01 $44,408.21
57459 SERVICES. POLICE DAY WIRELESS SYS 003087 10/19/01 $300.00
57460 SUPPLlES.PARKS DEL INDUSTRIES 003111 10/19/01 $2,234.82
57461 SERVICES.PUB WKS DEPT 003205 10/19/01 $1,200.00
57462 SERVICES. VARIOUS EL HISPANIC NEWS 004119 10/19/01 $200.36
57463 SERVICES. PARKS ENGELMAN ElEC 004190 10/19/01 $21,700.00
57464 SERVICES.STREET EVERGREEN TREE 004430 10/19/01 $900.00
57465 SUPPLlES.PARKS FAMILlAN NW 005030 10/19/01 $7,414.05
57466 SERVICES.WWTP FARM PLAN 005062 10/19/01 $644.20
57467 SUPPLI ES.L1 BRARY GALE GROUP 006015 10/19/01 $303.99
57468 SUPPLlES.L1BRARY GE CAPTIAL 006079 10/19/01 $181.30
57469 SUPPLlES.L1BRARY GROVES DICT 006368 10/19/01 $375.00
57470 SERVICES.VARIOUS HI RE CALLI NG 007240 10/19/01 $3,640.60
57471 SERVICES.WWTP ED HOOLEY 007301 10/19/01 $330.00
57472 SERVICES. PARKS IKON OFFICE 008119 10/19/01 $352.33
57473 SUPPLIES-WATER INTEGRITY LOCK 008210 10/19/01 $445.00
57474 SUPPLlES.WWTP lIT FLYGT CORP 008395 10/19/01 $973.00
57475 SERVICES-ADMIN JOBS AVAILABLE 009105 10/19/01 $119.60
57476 SERVICES-POLICE KEY INVESTMENTS 010080 10/19/01 $3,770.42
57477 SUPPLI ES- POLICE LAB SAFETY SUPPLY 011024 10/19/01 $160.21
57478 SUPPLI ES.POLlCE LASER LABS 011090 10/19/01 $213.50
Page 4
8D
AlP CHECK LlSITING FOR OCTOBER 2001
57479 SUPPLlES.L1BRARY LEISURES ARTS 011205 10/19/01 $24.91
57480 SUPPLI ES.PARKS MARINE RESCUE 012080 10/19/01 $104.10
57481 SUPPLlES.VARIOUS MARION CTY CLERK 012087 10/19/01 $82.75
57482 SUPPLIES-LIBRARY MARSHALL CAVENDISH 012235 10/19/01 $423.95
57483 SUPPLlES.VARIOUS METROFUELlNG 012448 10/19/01 $326.94
57484 SUPPLlES.L1BRARY MICRO MARKETING 012462 10/19/01 $23.40
57485 SERVICES.CABLE TV MUNICOM 012690 10/19/01 $8,165.12
57486 SERVICES.WNTP NEALS FRAMERY 013146 10/19/01 $488.52
57487 SERVICES.WWTP NC ANALYTICAL 013216 10/19/01 $65.00
57488 SUPPLlES.WWTP OBC NW INC 014013 10/19/01 $171.60
57489 SUPPLlES.WATER OR DEPT OF ADMIN 014198 10/19/01 $30.00
57490 SERVICES.PARKS OR DEPT OF CONS 014200 10/19/01 $205.36
57491 SERVICES. LI BRARY OR STATE LIBRARY 014560 10/19/01 $89.92
57492 SERVICES.ADMI N OREGONIAN 014653 10/19/01 $404.95
57493 SUPPLlES.WATER US FILTER 015065 10/19/01 $4,020.98
57494 REIMBURSE.L1B MARY PARRA 015168 10/19/01 $81.16
57495 SERVICES.WWTP PAULS SMALL MTR 015175 10/19/01 $280.23
57496 SUPPLI ES.PARKS JD PENCE AQUATIC 015223 10/19/01 $536.70
57497 SUPPLIES. VARIOUS PLATT ELECTRIC 015340 10/19/01 $172.34
57498 SERVICES-VARIOUS PORT GENERAL ElEC 015420 10/19/01 $1,774.83
57499 SERVICES-LIBRARY PROTECTION ONE 015566 10/19/01 $407.04
57500 SERVICES.PARKS PURKISS ROSE RSI 015670 10/19/01 $2,459.10
57501 SUPPLlES.L1 BRARY QWEST DEX 016203 10/19/01 $57.44
57502 SERVICES. WATER RADIX CORP 017035 10/19/01 $256.74
57503 SUPPLlES.L1BRARY RECORDED BOOKS 017102 10/19/01 $91.80
57504 SUPPLIES. LIBRARY REGENT BOOK 017148 10/19/01 $24.54
57505 SUPPLI ES.PARKS RODDA PAINT 017283 10/19/01 $1,265.58
57506 SERVICES. PARKS RSS ARCHITECTURE 017346 10/19/01 $1,224.50
57507 SUPPLI ES-STREET SAFFRON SUPPLY 018020 10/19/01 $1,638.00
57508 SUPPLIES-PARKS SCHUCKS 018283 10/19/01 $43.36
57509 SUPPLlES.VARIOUS LES SCHWAB TIRE 018300 10/19/01 $811.13
57510 SUPPLlES.PARKS SOS LOCK SERV 018608 10/19/01 $318.95
57511 SU PPLI ES. LI BRARY SOUTHEASTERN BOOK 018627 10/19/01 $785.40
57512 SERVICES.ENG TEK SYSTEMS 019046 10/19/01 $736.00
57513 SUPPLlES.VARIOUS CORPORATE EXPRESS 019100 10/19/01 $1,233.20
57514 SUPPLlES.WWTP TRUST.X QMS 019264 10/19/01 $35.39
57515 SUPPLlES.VARIOUS UNOCAL 020010 10/19/01 $364.55
57516 SUPPLlES.L1BRARY UNIV OF OREGON 020040 10/19/01 $52.00
57517 SUPPlIES.lIBRARY VHPS 021136 10/19/01 $115.36
57518 SUPPLlES.L1BRARY VICTOR KAMKIN 021175 10/19/01 $139.00
57519 SUPPLlES.POLlCE VIKING OFFICE 021180 10/19/01 $208.21
57520 SUPPlIES.lIBRARY VISIONS 021203 10/19/01 $420.85
57521 SUPPlIES.L1BRARY WEISS RATINGS 022128 10/19/01 $392.95
57522 SUPPLI ES. TRANS WESTERN BUS 022175 10/19/01 $216.00
57523 REIMBURSE-PARKS KATHY WILLCOX 022390 10/19/01 $156.27
57524 SERVICES. VARIOUS WBN FAMILY CLINIC 022587 10/19/01 $202.00
57525 SERVICES. VARIOUS WBN INDEPENDENT 022630 10/19/01 $1,238.85
57526 SERVICES. PARKS WBN PLUMBING 022695 10/19/01 $6,147.26
57527 SERVICES.WWTP WBN RADIATOR 022700 10/19/01 $990.00
57528 SERVICES. POLICE WBN 24 HR TOWING 022755 10/19/01 $100.00
Page 5
8D
AlP CHECK L1SllING FOR OCTOBER 2001
57529 SUPPLlES.L1BRARY WORLD BOOK 022810 10/19/01 $1,446.00
57530 SUPPLlES.L1BRARY WORLD MEDIA 022815 10/19/01 $882.99
57531 SERVICES. PARKS XEROX CORP 023020 10/19/01 $405.43
57532 SUPPLlES.VARIOUS YES GRAPHICS 024025 10/19/01 $2,064.50
57533 SUPPLIES-POLICE OR DMV 014240 10/19/01 $27.00
57534 SERVICES-WATER VALLEY MAILING 021044 10/19/01 $406.80
57535 VOID VO 10 VOID $0.00
57536 VOID VO I 0 VOID $0.00
57537 VO 10 VOID VOID $0.00
57538 SUPPLlES.ENG ASPHALT INSTITUTE NONE 10/26/01 $107.00
57539 SUPPLIES-STREET PHOENIX SALES NONE 10/26/01 $3,985.00
57540 SERVICES- TRANS BEST WESTERN NONE 10/26/01 $147.66
57541 REFUND-POLICE FRANCISCO REYES NONE 10/26/01 $150.00
57542 REFUND. POLICE JOSE PLATA NONE 10/26/01 $150.00
57543 SERVICES.RSVP AARP OREGON NONE 10/26/01 $50.00
57544 SERVICES. VARIOUS A&A PEST CONTROL 000011 10/26/01 $598.50
57545 SERVICES-PARKS ABBYS PIZZA 000027 10/19/01 $50.20
57546 SUPPLlES.C STORES ADVANCED LASER 000066 10/26/01 $549.65
57547 SERVICES.ENG AEROTEK 000080 10/26/01 $410.00
57548 SUPPLIES. PUB WKS ALS GARDEN 000160 10/26/01 $294.00
57549 SERVICES- VARIOUS ARAMARK UNIFORM 000534 10/26/01 $1,125.47
57550 SERVICES-ENG A.T.E.P. INC 000550 10/26/01 $525.00
57551 SERVICES-POLICE AUTO ADDITIONS 000558 10/26/01 $3,710.91
57552 SUPPLlES.PARKS AWARDS & ATHLETICS 000580 10/26/01 $270.30
57553 SERVICES. POLICE AT&T 000622 10/26/01 $463.61
57554 SERVICES. VARIOUS AT&T 000623 10/26/01 $41.08
57555 SUPPLlES.C GARAGE BATTERIES NW 001159 10/26/01 $137.90
57556 SUPPlI ES.POlICE BEARS & ROSES 001171 10/26/01 $2,591.20
57557 SUPPLIES-PARKS HOUSEHOLD BANK 001199 10/26/01 $350.59
57558 SUPPLIES-PARKS BEN FRANKLI N 001205 10/26/01 $42.23
57559 SERVICES-ATTY BEERY & ELSNER 001230 10/26/01 $279.30
57560 SUPPLI ES-VARIOUS BI MART CORP 001275 10/26/01 $540.26
57561 SERVICES.WWTP BOBS BACKHOE 001325 10/26/01 $4,230.00
57562 SUPPLI ES-STREET CCPIND 002300 10/26/01 $228.32
57563 SERVICES.WWTP CHERRY CITY ELEC 002424 10/26/01 $857.62
57564 SUPPLlES.VARIOUS COASTAL FARM 002625 10/26/01 $268.97
57565 SUPPLI ES.PARKS COLUMBIA CASCADE 002670 10/26/01 $1,831.00
57566 SERVICES. POLICE MARGOT COMLEY 002686 10/26/01 $150.00
57567 SUPPLIES-WATER CONS SUPPLY 002770 10/26/01 $1,995.20
57568 SERVICES-PUB WKS CRANE & MERSETH 002896 10/26/01 $19,165.15
57569 SUPPLIES-VARIOUS DAVISON AUTO 003080 10/26/01 $558.76
57570 SUPPLlES.POLlCE DAVISON AUTO 003081 10/26/01 $8.98
57571 SERVICES. POLICE DAY WI RELESS SYS 003087 10/26/01 $300.00
57572 SERVICES.ENG DE HAAS & ASSOC 003108 10/26/01 $11,977.65
57573 SERVICES.FINANCE DP NORTHWEST 003264 10/26/01 $2,532.00
57574 SERVICES.WWTP D.R. DAVIS LOCK 003275 10/26/01 $1,421.50
57575 SERVICES-ADM I N EL HISPANIC NEWS 004119 10/26/01 $126.02
57576 SUPPLlES.PARKS EMERALD POOL 004150 10/26/01 $104.80
57577 SERVICES. PARKS ENGELMAN ELEC 004190 10/26/01 $898.15
57578 SERVICES.PLANNING ENVIRON SYSTEMS 004210 10/26/01 $11,600.00
Page 6
AlP CHECK USITING FOR OCTOBER 2001 8D
57579 SERVICES.VARIOUS ESCHELON TELECOM 004264 10/26/01 $585.00
57580 SERVICES.WWTP MICHAEL FAIRCHILD 005015 10/26/01 $300.00
57581 SUPPLIES. VARIOUS FARM PLAN 005062 10/26/01 $431.15
57582 SERVICES.WWTP FEDERAL EXPRESS 005080 10/26/01 $115.01
57583 SERVICES-POLICE FOTO MAGIC 005258 10/26/01 $58.08
57584 SERVICES-PUB WKS GELCO CONST 006058 10/26/01 $119,988.80
57585 REIMBURSE-PUB WKS LYNN GERSTNER 006140 10/26/01 $37.12
57586 SUPPLIES. VARIOUS GW HARDWARE 006405 10/26/01 $727.68
57587 SUPPLlES.PUB WKS HAL TON CO 007046 10/26/01 $1,033.15
57588 REIMBURSE-WWTP JEFFREY HANSEN 007058 10/26/01 $44.70
57589 REIMBURSE-POLICE LINDA HEDRICKS 007114 10/26/01 $311.13
57590 SUPPLIES-PARKS HILL YERS MID CITY 007228 10/26/01 $7.79
57591 SERVICES. VARIOUS HIRE CALLING 007240 10/26/01 $1,865.80
57592 SUPPLlES.VARIOUS IND WELDING 008100 10/26/01 $150.24
57593 SERVICES- VARIOUS 10S CAPITAL 008118 10/26/01 $1,272.79
57594 SUPPLlES.C GARAGE I NTERST A TE AUTO 008295 10/26/01 $92.09
57595 SERVICES.MUSEUM JOHN PILAFIAN 009130 10/26/01 $6.50
57596 SUPPLIES-VARIOUS L&L BUILDING 011010 10/26/01 $690.20
57597 SERVICES-ADMI N LEAGUE OF OR CITI ES 011110 10/26/01 $10.00
57598 SUPPLIES. POLICE LIGHTNING POWDER 011230 10/26/01 $141.00
57599 SUPPLlES.PARKS LINCOLN EQUIPMENT 011250 10/26/01 $469.09
57600 SERVICES. POLICE MARION CTY TREAS 012223 10/26/01 $502.23
57601 SUPPLlES.ATTY MATTHEW BENDER 012298 10/26/01 $37.32
57602 SUPPLIES-VARIOUS METROFUELlNG 012448 10/26/01 $2,068.21
57603 SUPPLlES.STREET MILES CHEVROLET 012490 10/26/01 $80.77
57604 SUPPLlES.VARIOUS MR P'S AUTO PTS 012510 10/26/01 $782.44
57605 SERVICES.ENG MULTI TECH ENG 012682 10/26/01 $2,635.11
57606 SUPPLIES. VARIOUS NEOPOST 013154 10/26/01 $1,209.00
57607 SUPPLlES.WATER NES TRENCH 013157 10/26/01 $2,445.00
57608 SERVICES-VARIOUS NEXTEL COMM 013188 10/26/01 $1,538.88
57609 SERVICES.WWTP NC ANALYTICAL 013216 10/26/01 $5,581.00
57610 SUPPLlES.WWTP I.DAY SIGNS 014003 10/26/01 $74.00
57611 SERVICES-POLICE OACP 014008 10/26/01 $100.00
57612 SERVICES.ENG ONSITE ENVIRON 014055 10/26/01 $414.15
57613 SUPPLlES.ATTY OR LAW REVIEW 014335 10/26/01 $28.00
57614 SERVICES.ENG PACIFIC OFFICE 015042 10/26/01 $325.50
57615 SUPPLI ES.STREET PAULS SM MOTOR 015175 10/26/01 $44.00
57616 SUPPLlES.PARKS PEPSI COLA 015225 10/26/01 $452.85
57617 SUPPLlES-WWTP PLATT ELECTRIC 015340 10/26/01 $145.41
57618 SUPPLlES.PARKS PROMOTIONS WEST 015563 10/26/01 $676.80
57619 SERVICES-WATER QWEST 016199 10/26/01 $694.45
57620 SUPPLlES-ENG RADIO SHACK 017030 10/26/01 $69.98
57621 SUPPLI ES. PARKS ROTHSIGA 017340 10/26/01 $36.77
57622 SUPPLlES.MUSEUM SALEM PRI NTI NG 018110 10/26/01 $1,477.00
57623 SUPPLlES.VARIOUS LES SCHWAB TIRE 018300 10/26/01 $1,383.70
57624 SUPPLI ES.WWTP SIERRA SPRINGS 018460 10/26/01 $103.00
57625 SERVICES. VARIOUS SOS LOCK SERVICE 018608 10/26/01 $168.49
57626 SERVI CES. PARKS SPIRIDON RACE MGMT 018695 10/26/01 $586.00
57627 SERVICES.ENG TEK SYSTEMS 019046 10/26/01 $368.00
57628 REIMBURSE-REC MARY TENNANT 019055 10/26/01 $118.72
Page 7
AlP CHECK LlSITING FOR OCTOBER 2001 8D
57629 SUPPLIES. POLICE TERRITORIAL SPlS 019060 10/26/01 $382.15
57630 SUPPLIES-FINANCE CORPORATE EXPRESS 019100 10/~6/01 $177.00
57631 SERVICES-WWTP TSR CORP 019270 10/26/01 $1,000.00
57632 SUPPLIES- VARIOUS UNOCAL 020010 10/26/01 $1,334.13
57633 SERVICES. VARIOUS VERIZON WIRELESS 021124 10/26/01 $2,187.11
57634 SUPPLlES.AnY WEST GROUP 022160 10/26/01 $371.00
57635 SUPPLlES.C GARAGE WITHERS LUMBER 022445 10/26/01 $149.02
57636 SERVICES.CABLE TV WCAT 022547 10/26/01 $2,440.70
57637 SUPPLI ES-VARIOUS WBN FERTILIZER 022590 10/26/01 $2,544.00
57638 SERVICES-PUB WKS WBN INDEPENDENT 022630 10/26/01 $78.75
57639 SUPPLlES-WWTP WBN RENT-ALL 022708 10/26/01 $121.80
57640 SUPPLlES.VARIOUS YES GRAPHICS 024025 10/26/01 $2,323.10
57641 REIMBURSE.WATER BEULAH JORDAN 045320 10/26/01 $61.25
57642 SERVICES-ADMI N OLIVER MADEIRA INS NONE 10/26/01 $175.00
57643 SERVICES-PARKS XEROX CORP 023020 10/31/01 $60.00
57644 PETTY CH.VARIOUS CITY OF WOODBURN 015255 10/31/01 $133.42
$592,858.37
Page 8
8E
MEMO
FROM:
City Council through City Administrat#'
Public Works Program Manager q /~
TO:
SUBJECT: Arsenic Limit for Drinking Water
DATE:
November 6, 2001
On October 31, 2001, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that
it was establishing the arsenic limit for drinking water at 10 parts per billion (ppb) and
that water systems must be in compliance by January 2006. This will be a reduction
from the current 50 ppb level which had been the lawful limit for nearly half a century.
The City Council approved water treatment project will reduce the arsenic level of the
city's water supply to below 10 ppb in early 2005, almost a year prior to the required
compliance date.
The 10 ppb limit was established on January 22, 2001 by the outgoing administration
and then place on hold by the Bush administration until February 2002 to await
additional studies on risk, costs to water systems and benefits of the new standard.
The primary report that experts feel caused the EPA to act prior to the February 2002
deadline was a September 2000 National Academy of Science report that strongly
suggested that the risks of arsenic were understated in previous studies and were
greater than earlier estimated.
City wells have, over the past several years, tested for arsenic at levels that have
ranged from 6 to 13 ppb. The majority of the test results have been in the 7 to 9 ppb
range. The pilot study on the city's proposed water process was conducted at well 10
which consistently tested at an arsenic concentration of 12 ppb during the two month
test.
The proposed city treatment process was directed to remoVe iron and manganese but
the reduction of arsenic was also a primary goal of the process. This was done since it
was determined that arsenic levels in city water would need to be reduced as a result of
the anticipated reduction of the arsenic concentration. There have been calls since the
release of the September 2000 National Academy of Science report for an even lower
arsenic limit. The city's proposed treatment process offers the flexibility to address
greater arsenic reductions if required.
City of Woodburn
Police Department
STAFF REPORT
270 Montgomery Street
Woodburn, Oregon 97071
(503) 982-2345
Date:
November 7,2001
/ ~11, Chief of Police
Mayor and Council #
John Brown, City Administrator
From:
To:
Thru:
Subject:
Police Department Activities - August and September 2001
The Consolidated Monthly Report is a monthly analysis of police department calls for service.
This report lists all police department incident investigations for the month, shows year to date
statistics, and comparisons to the previous year. The report is in conformance with Federal
Bureau of Investigations national guidelines for crime classifications and is reported to the State
of Oregon Law Enforcement Data System via the Regional Automated Information Network.
Should you have questions or wish further information, please contact me.
8F
o
,
CO
N
,
o
.-4
CI
W
....
to
OIl
a:
oC
VI
:z
o
VI
0::
W
0..
W
I'"
oC
CI
1
I
1
I
I-
VI I 01:
Oc>-
'..1./ ...J
~ I
d :::10::
:t;'>-
~ 1-1
Ci
OIl VI:
W....IO
c.. :t:jX
1-'
I
I
I
....
CI:
o
"'o..~
o..WO
Wo::....
o 0
>-1'<\
UJ-l....
U:l:O'
.......0
...IZ
00::::>
o..EOIl
:t:
ZOI-
0Il',JJ
:;:)....'"
ClJcO
00",
0........
O...JO
::EO'
VI 0'
ZO
o
U
,
CI :;; I' CI:
WOC>-
CIC...J
oC
~ I
U VII
VI ;;I~
~ 1-1
w '
u.. VII
~%I~
1-1
I
I
I
1-1
ZIW
wlUl
~!~
wl:r:
o..U
l-
V) VI,'"
W c,>-
VI ..J i
Z i
W '
u.. '
u.. VI!
0.....;0:
:r:l>-
~ 1-1
::>
I-
UVI
"'" ....'0
xix:
1-'
I
o
I
.....
t'\j
o
I
...
...
o
t'\j
0"
OIl
C
Ij
18
I
I~
10
I-
I
~I~
J~
I
I
!
N
N
4'
N
....
...J
::::>
o
oC
.-4
N
N
>
:::l
...,
I~
~ N ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 .. ~ '" ~ "'0 0 " ~ ~ J~ '" '" N N '" N ~ 0'" 0 0\
' , 'I' , , , , , , , · , , , 'I' , · · · ,I. · , · · , · , · · · ·
N 0' ~ co 11'\ 11'\ -t ..0 0' 11'\ ClJ[O 0 -t ~ 0 1'<\ t'Il co ,... co ~ .... 0 ,... 0 ~
It'll ..0 0'10" 0' 0' -t ..0 0' co ClJ co 0 .(I ,., co 11'\ co ,... :0 ,... 11'\ N ~ eo ~ ,...
ICO,... 0 0 00"" 0 0 0 0 co N -t 0 -t': 0' ~,... Oleo ~ -t .(I N ~il1'\ 0" 0 NO 0
" . 'I · · ',' , , , · · I I , . · '1 I . · . . . , . 'I' · I , · ,
INNOIOOO'O :011'\"......O....O..o~It' 1~-t-t'..o,...eol-tO 0'0
11'\ ,... It'I: 0 0 0' 10' -t ~ 0' ,... co ,... 0 ,... 11'\ eo 0 ,.. co ..0 11'\ N 11(\ 0' -t 1(\
I"'~ ....... I I
,N..o 0, '110 0 0'0 00000......0 010 0 -t''''' NOlO.... CO!O ..0 01,... 0 0 000
:, , I . . . . . . . . , , , , , , , , , , , , '1' · I , · I I , ,
i~ .(I 0 0 0 0 00"" ..0 0 0,...... -t' 0 -t' ... co 1(\ 0 0
'1'11'\..0""10 00 NNO'..oOi O"",NCO 10,...COI 11'\ ~O ~
....... ~.... .....i ..... j.... P""lI
I I i I
,... 0' ....Im 1(\1'0 -t N 0 ~ "Ol-t.... :0 ~ ~... -t 0 ~ co N <<1'10''''' I::::! a-
N .... ,... -t' a- -t' N "'1 .... ..0'" N '" 0' ,... .....(1 "'"
.... N INN CO! N IN
O'CO~I..o...,..."" N,......OO"'....>8'-tN II CO 0'..01..0 0..0'" 0 11'\..0
>8' 1>8' t'Il ~ I....~, N t'Il ~ ,... ~ .... ..0 ,... ,... 0'" 10'
I ". ,~ I 0' N'"
Ih ~.. "':: I ~ ~ ~ N ~ I ~ ~ '" ~ IN ~ "', ~ I~ ~ ~
IIN .., N i", N '" I~ ~ ..IIN N H H H N N N N N H N '" .., N N If N IN N If N N N
....!"I ..oleo 0 1t'I!"I 0 0 0"" !"II-#'..o eo 10 0 11'\ It'll ......0 l"\..o ..oIClJ -t t'Ill..o '" 0 !"I 0 0
· · · · , · · · · · · '1. · '1' · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
-#' It'I ..011'-- 0 ""10' I'-- !"I II'-- ..0 co 10 1'<\ l-t ..0 ..0 .... 0 ..0 ,00 1'<\ '" I'-- ,...
:N ... ... 1'<\ 0 11'\ I"" 11'\ ... m I-#' ...... .... ..0 >8' t'Il .... ,.0 N -t' 11'\ ....
+ I I: I :;: I [I I ':: ';' 1+ , + 1+ I..., I i I + I II + I 1+ + 1+
.0 J.. ,,!~ I '" ~ I..... 0 eo!\l'I .... .0 N ,... 1"\ 'Il~ I'-- ~ i,., .... ,...i", ClJ i.... t'Il
'It'll .... ....;1'-- -t'10 1>8' r<'I .... I r<'I 10 ..0 t'Il I'-- 0 It'll 0 ,., 'I..... '..0 ....
.... 'I' iN ,N 'I 1"'1 .... N I 0... ..0 '" I'~
I ' I ... I I
I : I ',' I I !
Icr-... 0,.0'" ol-t' Ll" ",,11"'110 Ll"1,...... ....110 -#' ....11,...".. 010" -t' ...!I/">'" ".. N
I-t' ... ...;~ "" 110 N ... 110 N N i 0" 10 N ,"''''' 0'- , N N 1-0 ... co ...
i'" i'" It'll, N N N ' ~ :1 I'-- IS' ...
i i; ! I I ~
I I i I I I! .
III'-- f'l'\ N i-t' Ll" :CO I/"> Ll" j", f'l'\ r<'I , ........ ,f'l'\ co, iN It', .... : cr-... :0 1""1
"'"'" i!~ l~ i f'I'" IN m I l,,~ -4 I ,.... il'-
I i Ii! I'" I .... i
~' !
I
I
I .:i ~I~ , J,. , ~)~ ~ ~
: Ii ~il~ I 0:~1 g VIVI El~~i~ I~
'I ,~....o.. 'LlJI- zea 1-:1: 0::::> z..J....cx '00::
UJ > [0.. I I I' Z I :r: 0 0 .... I- Z W ..... w CQ w >- lZ 0
XI .... (VI' '~' WI I- I VI:l:l1..W..J:::l 0::0 0...... u..
....1 ~ ,~UIjU~"" OQ r:t!1-:r:Q~ c>-~ lX WW
fJ Z r-' ~ ~ ~ ~ I 6 ex ~ ~ c ::; ex Q...I ti 0.. ~ VI ~ ~
_ pVl ~ ~ ~ex~ QIUO"~W! zuw8V1 a:
_1j~~~~UIj ~I~>w Ul c % oC....... c
_...\ wz........... I4c/ZUCX"'%Z ~ ow 1-1- I..IU uw
~14..J'" u..~ UlCWI -w OIlC Q~ VlVI __ Z
1-~~~02~u.. %wo::OIll1.. VlQ w:r: zc ....w 0.....1 ~...
a:c U;:)'CCCVI..J 0 VlO :t:- CU VllC \llCQ UCX
CCX w~ lXCIC ...~c>cx -:;:) I-Z CQO VlOZj:;:) _C
I-#'
,,,,
I
!
""~
I
""IN
It'>8'NOOrf'\or--1oo-
..........
""0:0..000" 1/">00
'" 0' 0' 0 0["" 0" 0 0:0
....... ...
r<'I '" ,-t 0 0 I',,'" 0.(1\0 '"
. . '1 . . . . . .
N ,... CO 0 'N ,... 0 11'\
0\ 0" '" ~ i(%) '" 9 (%)
: 1
OOloOOIClJOOIO-o
. , . . '1' . · . .
o 0 0 0 '1<:0 0 0 ..0
0000 a) 000'
""...~.... .......
I
11'\ 1"'1011'\ ""II-#' ,... ~ CI)
"'11'\... a) NNO
>8'''' N-t
I
N>8'I'--..o
...O"N
r<'I....
I
]
leo
'1..0
I
1..0
I'"
I
"'-#',...
... It'I
-o,...1t'I
Nrf'\CO
.... -t
...NI'--....
>8'....
NHNHNNNNNN
1t'I....-t'coO-t'Olt'lo..o
..........
t'IlN-t'!"IO'" It'Ico-#'
-0... It'ION -t'-t....
...
'I' I + ·
I
I
!
... I I
I
,
CQ oilt'l r<'I ....'0
.l:J 11""1.... '....
~ .... !...
1
i
..... -t'1\1'.l:J i""
... 0 IN ,ro
~ ... !
i !
....NII'--... CC
-t' ,'" ;.....
I'--Ilt'-t'
.....NO
N! It'\
,
0'11'-- CO
",1m,...
....1 l~,
I
I
!"I,-#, c;...
....! I/">
I 1\ i
I ~EI
': i~'l ~ wi ~ ex
...J u..VI ..JW
...JU Z..J :::l:l:
........ Oc <I-
5~fu~r~c
I
I
I
i
14' -t
"'~
...
'"
COO'
t'IlQ\
1..0 It'
i -4
1
I
I
I
It'!' .(I
. .
I... '"
Ir-- -0
I
I
'01"'1
i' ,
'.... N
1"" ..0
I
1
i -0 0-
!. .
10...
I,... -0
I
!
i
,
I.., I/">
1-0 -t
10....
l-t'lt'I
'\(\ ..0
1\(\ !"I
~~
1
b~
1tI..o
~N
11(\ 0-
'. .
Il""'\ ~
I
1+ +
I
i
0-1"-
1-.4" ,...
1..0 0
~co
<'.11"'1
~~
il(\ CC
i
:l"1 co
NO
1'--0
I ....
,
i
I
i
.... ~I i
, ~
....J 1-1
::lO ~~
< I
Vlu..
VlU. U
<0 VI ' I-
.... 1--0
OIlU :I: ...1-
w.... ro
uu. 0::
....~ W ~~
u... i:
u.ex
0"" 0
~
0::
o
...Q......
Q"UJO
Wo::'
o 0
>-~
w-'......
u:t:OoI
:3 ~ 01
00:)
Q..XCl:
ZO~I
o::w
:J.......
CCoCO
ge::::,
0-,0
:Xo'
VI 00
%0
o I
u ,
....
o
I
....
N
o
I
....
....
o
N
00
~
U
....
o
~
1'\1
......
o
....
Q
W
...
~
UJ
0::
~.
UJ
~
oC
o
VI
Z
o
V'l
ffi
a..
~
V'l0::
S=3>-
0::
0<
W
-lV'l
u...o::
::1:>-
~...
Z
LlJ
U
0:: VI
W"'O
a..::I:X
~
...
O~o::
ti!~>-
<
LlJ
...J
U~
"'0::
V'l::>-
LlJ'"
~
Z
LlJ
u..VI
IL....O
O::l:X
~
~
ZUJ
UJCJ)
~I~
LUX
Q..U
I
I
VI t;; 110::
woC>-
VI-'
"2
UJ
l:t VII
0"'10::
:I: >
...J....
;; ;
~ ,
U VI'
<...10
:I:ir
'""I
i
I
I
I
!
.--t--'l'~'-'l
~ ::: I
15 I' ....~ ~:" :
ftt. 5 ,.J., l
. C:::J ...
r:i- I <......J i . . I
....' I r-... ....1'-1..
:l)_i I ::
~. 1 I" ~.
. .....1 '> i~_
1-" i ~ ..
i~ -l -.. .
t..,
I
." ....H..: I I
OO,",OCC 000",", 0",", CC N,",
..............
.0 1'\100 0 ,",..r-oco
1'1'\ ..rIl\C:O N ....N'"'
o 0 c:olo 0 0 N 00 11\ I'- N "'"' 0
. . . . . . . .-, . . . . .
o NI 0 N "'"' c:o N N c:o
o..r NI'- ....NNNN
: 0 010 0 0 0 0.0 0"" -011\0
...1...........
o 00 c:o r"\-oN
11\1 N11I\ "'....1....
N
C:O""....
N
"'"'....
....
..r ""..rc:o -0 N-olt\....
.... ....""N
....
N "" N"" ""NIJ'\a:l1"l
........1 ~N
.... ........ N ....1"1....
....
!~ ~ ~ ~~ ss ~~ s~~It:s
I. · 'I'.' · · · · · · .1 -.
o .0 ....11\0 -oO..rl'-llfIO
o 1"11 I'- N a:l ~ ,... '" I.... lfI
.... i
+ 111++ ++1++1
i I
....,11 ,... eX) 0 ,...II('. I'- a:l100 N
.... ....,... a:l;:.,'O....
I
,...1 N01a:l N""N.oO.o
....1.... eX) Nll\ r.o
! 1'-1
i
I
i
ll\IN ""
I N
I
I
Nl
I
1
!
1
I
""~ieX)N
I
i
I
...
lJ.j -l
o :::l
... oC LiJ
U VI U
... VI Z
1: 0:: < w
~ ~ 0 ~SVl I-
-' 3. ~~>-ffilnlfl tl:i
oC :::l )oOJ:oCO::Oocz>-:c
...zo::< ocwo::><...t...ZI-
....W-l W:Z:oCoC-lV'lZVlW Z
"'xo~w~o::z ~wO:::luOO
o::....o::za.CCOC:::l !OI:ZCCO::l-VI
~~i~:~ <cc I ~~~
....
~
....
-o~N
i
I~
I
Icc
I
It\
......,.
N
....<"./
.0
"'I~
1"1,..
N
....
-o..rN
....N
N
...
....
....
I
!o
I~
N
1
I.... ... 0 0 0 ~ U'I 0 N ... 0 0 0 ,.. N '"' 0 0 "" N
oo-Aoo": · '.;.,; 'o~~~.o 'o~":
eX)""N.oCO"'~ NeX) ooc:o..,.-o 000.0
........ I ....
-0 N -0 0 eX) 0 -0 0 ....1.... 0 0 0 '" eX) .... 0 0 .0 1'\
. . . . . '" . . . .. . . . . . . .
~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~g~~~gg~~
.... ........
..,.
.
1"1
N
N
.
.0
....
OO....""OO'ONOO.oOO-oO""..,.OOOO
....................
-0""''''' -ON 01'- 0-011\1"1-0 00-0
"'11\"" ....N 00 0....""'1'\,.. OOlfl
1IIlIlI............ ......-4
00
o
N
""1t\eX).o~""",
00-0.... ~....
I
o .... N 1:'1....
....N,..f'!"I"'"'
....
0......,.
f'!"I'O....
....
eX).o
o
....
N
'"
N
1'-,..
tf'\
....
OON..,.,..OO....""ll\fl\
oolfl""I'- It\tf'\
....
I
leX) 00 ..,. 00 .... ....
....NN otN
...
I
o
N
0..,....
...
....N ..."" ....,...'ON"" ....oot
.... 1'"4.-4'"
>>
CO
.
eX)
I'"
I
i+
1
I
I~
I....
l~
I~ ~ ~ ~aH~ ~ s = ~nn~ an~ ~ ~ S S ~ ~
. . . . . I... _I' · · · · · · · · · ·
Oo..,.~OCNIt\ONO tf'\00....eX)00....0
Not....eX)N........O...1f\ N I 000 N
!+ I , I 7: I ... ': ,1+ I I I +:;: 11+ +
I I I I
I ,
I i
1>0 N 00 0 ll\ eX) 10. m!.o 0... I'- ""II"- 0 ~ .c
1....-0.01.... 1f\1"" I"I'N ""NeX)I'-'O ",,-oeo
.......: r<'\ I I.... ,'" I... ....
I I I I ! I
1000' N.... "" II('.... 0010 OIN 00 0 -0... ""ill\ ot
ll\ 00 I('. .... "'1"" N 100 ... 'I'" I'- I'- ... 1-0 N
.... rr. :....... I ...... i N
I i I I I
j' I i II' I '
, 1 ~,.Ic ,^
I"" .... r<'I NO'.... 1m ... '.0 eX) .0 ,... ~ w,
',,", -1' I I.... 'I I.... i.... N
I !
I I I
1 1 I
I "
I I I
1 lu I
.... % I
... I >- ..J l-
L:.J -l u.. ~)
u.. ....Z ;::)0':
~~ ~~ ZV'l~~: ~g ~
:::l;::) %Q.. Cwo:: l-~VI ~ >
oCO we ~VlO VlZ:X)o~ :::l
~u :Z:0::J: ~z Z~<-, ~
"" WQ..VI :::lWI.J"'- -'01:'" W
_<~ -' "'~l-u.....~oC WVI .
- 0:: NZ-'~_~l-"'''' ~O<W3<l-
~WONW<0l-OO~OC~~0I:Q..~W20
l-W~:::lW-'O~~ UCC 0 <u..~
O::.~oCCCOZ<O~O::xu.. ",Wl.Jo::-,
C l- 0 ~ X ... < W Ill: W loC < LI. 0:: .... .... 10:: ~ :::l I ..J
Q..eu..u..w"'>3Q.."'Z"'OQ~O~WuO::OC
i~
:N
I....
I
~O
-occ
I
81
.0
00....
1:',..
""1'"4
,..",
I'- '1'\
. .
~:::
I
"'It\
. .
otN
11\04'
"".0
. .
"'00
It\f'!"I
"'....
"'cc
eX) 0
....
00...
I~ ~
I
l'fItf'\
00....
1'"4
I
II~~
. .
N-4'
1
i, ...
I
I
I~ co
C'>N
I:'~
....N
I
I
i~ :;
Ill\ Lr'
r-N
I
~~
....l'J
1
I
!
,
C!'
~
n
I-
....
....
...
<:r:
oC
Q..
""
~~
1-
~ I
IX ,
o '
~ Cl. ...1
l1.wol
W IX 'I
o ...
> "'I
w -I"
'-' :c crll
...~O
-1%
00:)
l1.::CO::
:c
% 0 ~I
!5 ~ ...'
I'l:l CO!
00'1
O~....
0-10
:z 0'1
VIol)
Zo
o
u
...
o
I
...
N
o
I
, :::
o
~d8'
a:::
loe
'-'
....
o
,
a;I
N
.....
o
...
W
too
<
:!
Q a
~ too
... 0
VI ~
~
IX ~
-< -I
:)
VI 0
Z 'e
o
VI
or::
w >
Cl. :)
'"')
J
III I IX
O-C>
~ -II
-I VII
u...a:::
:r>
I- too'
Z I
~ I
iX VI'
w"'lo
Cl.:c::c
tool
I
o :;;,i a:::
we>
0::-1
-<
d VII
...' a:::
VI :cl>-
~~,
t1. III I
u....o
o ~I:C
I
I
~!
%I'W
Wc.!l
u-z
0::1<
w::
Cl.'U
I
I
VI t::ila:
w<>
VI -I'
Z 1
w :
lL !
U. VII
o ....!IX
::c:1>-
:J ~I
:J !
I- '
U VII
oe "'10
::c:lx:
...,
I
N
I~
I
U"I
N
\t'I
,..
N
I
iN
\t'IN~OOOl)OI)OO~~~O~NOoO...~,",~...~N~~~~OOOO
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ... · · · 'I ' · · · · · · · ·
~~OO "IN ~~O,",oO\t'I ~oOO~\t'I~~oO,","'~'" ....U"I
N .() 0' 0 0' 0' ~ .of 0 a;I 00 ,.. .() M <<:I M crl ,.... 00 ,.. '"' "I ~ 00 U"I ,..
"','" I
U"I 0 0 0 0 o!,.. 0 0 0 0 0 U"I 0 "II' ~ 0 0' "I 0 0 ~ ~ 10 1-0 0 0 .... \t'I 0 .... 0 0
. . . . , , , , . , , . , . . , . . , . . . , 'I' · , · · · · · ·
NU"IOOOIOO' U"I\t'I~N"'''' -o,..~ ~~~.(),..O~,.. 0'0
M ,.. \t'I 0 0 00 CD \t'I ,.. 0' ,.. ~ ,.. ,... MerlO ,.. 001~ '"' '"' U"I <0 ~ U"I
....... ....
00000 0 ~ OOo.() o'O.() 0 -0 0 0 ~ ~ 00"'" "'10 0' 0 0 0 0 -0 -00
· · · · · · · · · I · · · · · · · · · · · · · 'I' · · · · · · · 'I
0' 00 00 -0 0 .() 0 .() ,.. 0 <4 10 ~ ~ ... \t'I 0 .() -0
o 0 017' .() 0 .() 0 -0 ,.. M <4 0 ,.. 0)1 ~ U"I 0 U"I-o
~ ... ,... ..... .... 1...-4 I .-
JI~ N ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ '" j" ~ ~ ~
~ ~ 0 '" '" 10 I'"l >C I'"' ,..
.... '" ,.. .... '"
01", 0 ~ ~ ,.. >C ~ >C <0 ,.. ~.()
o'~ ,Q ... U"I >C .... ~ <Xl
",I... <Xl '" '"
1
I
~ ",INO\t'lI'"'
I~ '" ....1
.... .() ,.. 00 ,..I \t'I
.... ~1'"l""1
'" I
Ii
"I ~ "I I'"lIN ::;'~:: IN:: ~I :;: ~ N ::; N
I '
I I I I
~ ~ H N ~ N ~ N N ~ N ,N ~ ~II~ ~ N,., ~ ~I~,., ,.,i~ ~ N,., ~ ~'N'" ~
~ NI'"' 0 ~ ,.. 0 0 0'" -0 ~.... ~ 0 0 ,.. -0 ... -0 ~ 0 ... illO ,.. 0' Il\ 0 0 -0 0 0
. · . . · · · -. · · · · J · .1 · · · --' · · · · .11, . · · I . . . .
~ 0) ,.. U"IO 0 <4 N .() -0 '" O'I\t'I '" Il\ -0 -0 -0 \t'I '" 0 .... \t'I \t'I 0
NMN~O~ ",,ol'"l N'" .......N,o"''''....-oN~ "I I
.......... I I
.. I 'II + III + .. + + .. + '.. I I I + I i I + I 1+ 1+ I
I' 1 I I! i
N"'....!I\t'I "'''I 0'",1"1-4''''1-4' COONI"\ICO\t'lNIM,...,..I$crl U"IN
s......,O ~,~ !;::l"''''1 ~~~ I"'C;"""'~'"'!-4' I;::;....
,I I I, I I
N co crl'IIN.... if'>'lolJ 0 crl!crl It" ",I,.. olif'> olJ ""I'\t'I-4' 0-'.,10- lr> oiif'> crl 111/"1 N
r<'J -4' N olJ N:~ N NI olJ coco .... -4',...' 0 N:O', I;:; ...
I i.... IN II N ... I'"l I ::: : -0 :-4'
I ii, , I I
I I I! I
.... olJ N:.... r<'J ....!.... r<'J .... '" IX) '" .() .... t\l a:l a- ' -4' t\l 10' N 10 '"
I 1r<'J I'"', ~ t\l N I ,..... 0' ,a:l l"1
, I I - 1 I
I I
, I
I :
I! I
, I: '
-I ~i I I u 5
-C:)Cl. or > I u.J....
~i~ ~~ ~ VI~ ~ ~=
u....Cl. W~ z~ ~.::c' Q:;:) ZVl
W > ~ I I I Z :1:0 ~':i!t15~1 ~< "'0
~ .... ~~~J ~ b6 ~~:Co= ~>~~~~a~ ~ o~~
~ ~ ~UUU~-I 10:: WC~-O, -I~WCl. ~~~Q Cl.-
'-'z e-<.c-<c o>~~w-cua:::1 OZeU :)CZw :1:0
- ~~ w ~ VI~UW OluCl.~WQ ZU~O~e~ Q
"'U~IIl'~-I'-'U'-' -I~>W>~ we ~~ o<....I~.... =c uw
....... wz_.........~czu~~zzo -I~Owztoo~ uUIXUW -I
~~-I"'=u.~~ ~cw'~""~~a:::ewO~ VlVI...- Z-Iu
too~ ~o3u.~~=w~a:::~""~oIUW%~zco""w L~ w- ........
~c~u~,oe-<c~~~ Oc.!lIllO"'::C:"'O.cu VI% ~= u~e>:C
cIX....W-I~a:::~I~_~c>~~-~:;:)~z~=Q ~o ~:;:) -c ....w
~~:r~WO~too~~""3:CCl.U.%VlIIl0-<~<-I~oeo ~Cl. VI:C u>
1tI0'01t\
"I ...-0
0'17'
M,o
....
r<'J-o-4't\l...."'O'
-4' -4' N~
....
"I
....()
T
I
...~...
....t\j....
m .... olJ 0 0 0 0 ....10 1"\
........,...
r<'JCD-oOO.c ,oo~
'"'0'0'00'" 0-0'"
...... ...
olJNNOONO-4'O~
"""""
....,...<00 .... ,..0"1
0- ~ 0' 0 12) 0'-10 <Xl
.... ...
00000-0000,...
.....,...,
00 olJ 0011\
00 CD OOCD
...... .......
....NOU"l t\j
.... \t'I ... IIIt\
""...
N ... 11"\ 0' "" "I
T I~ ~ '"
>> ,., IN ,., N L >> ~ ,., tot
o -4' CD ItI 0 i'" 0 -4' 1-4' '"
C;; ~ ~ ~ o!~ ''; ~ .ri
o >C 0 1r<'J ~ ~
.... "'1
+ , I I ',' 11+ +
I I
O'I",~
~IN ~
!
.air<'J a-
.....11"\....
....1 if'>
I
0'.111"\ -4'
... ,...
"'-oItlM....r<'J
,......... ,..
""...
-0 "' 0' r<'J ...lolJ
CD....... fO'
"' ... ,
1
,
t\l N ~It\l 1/"1
....~:::
....N...
olJ
I
!
I
I
I
I
i
i
o I
W
:c
0:: >-
....w I-a:::
~VI ~w
8~~~~
i
...11\-0
Ot\jU"l
t\l ""
M1", <Xl
"'1r<'J t\l
... -4'
'-4'
~-o
,1/"1
,-
a:::
UJ
~::c:
-I too
:;:)0
C
Vl~
VI~
cO
o::U
W'"
'-'~ 0::
....~ W
~c :c
~~ too
O~, 0
...0
~...
....
crlm
MO'
....
I'" ::
t\l0'-
h..: ~
, .c
0-4'
. .
~:~
. .
....
,..-0
i
I
0'"'
,..
'"
~
o
,..
olJ
I
I
it-t,.,
i"'O'
r~
1+ +
I
~'N""
""0
...
I-t'"
i
~~
rim
r""
I
~~
I ....
u
VI
...
:c
I~ :J
15
...
~~
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
(l:: ,
~~~
Q.Wo
Wo=
o ....1
w~~i
U% <<II
...~ 01
...J%
00;:)
Q.lt(l::
:t:
%0...
~~....
<<1<0
00'
0........
O...JO
:1:0,
Vl<<l
~ 01
U ]
....
o
I
....
N
o
I
....
....
~8
,.x
<
U
....
o
,
<<I
N
,
o
....
Q
W
~
Vl
w
.x
ex
<
Vl
:z:
:;:)
VI
(l::
w
a.
W
t-
<
o
t-
O ~I~
W...J
(l::
<
w
d ~I' :r:
:1::0-
~~
Z
~ VII
w...IO
Q. :t:llt
~I
I
I
~i
OVl'OI:
w <1:0-
CX...J
~J
_j(l::
Vl:C>
w~
VI
%
W
~Vl
~...O
0::':
~
1-:
VI VlI(l::
W<I>
Vl ...II
% '
w I
It VI!
O;!~
...J ...;
<
;:) I
... '
U Vli
'< ....10
:rl::l:
1-;
~ J-LJ1
: ' I :1 '
; ,~rl\\
1~'1'}\ II~ :.~.
.- I c.
, I c..
l 0 ~]~ ~ ~ : ~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 0
..J...........
~ ,oNII'I 0 N-t-DO'
~ .....,,11) N ....N~
OOOOOOOO~Il'IOa)II'IO
..............
o 011'1 O<<l....NO
~ 4'1 N'" N N N N '"
0001'0001100011000'100
. . . . . . . . . . . .1' ·
o ,..
1(....
I
I
-tl .... '" -0 ~
I
I
N NI
I
I
I I
I 1 I
I I.... ~ I~
I I I I
w Nil>> N wiN>> N N N N N N iN
o Il'I 0 -0 Il'I 11'1 0 N 0 -0 ~ 0 -0 i""
· · .1 · . · . · . . . · .. ..
o ~I -0 a) <<I C1' 0 ~ 0 a) '" i<<l
~ lfI, -0 N ::: 4' ,... ~ .... -D I....
... I i I I... I + I +,+ I 1+
1 I I I I
-! -0,...1,... \I'l\l"lIl'l"'I........ I....
-I .01 ,... <<11-0.... ]1"1
II 1 4' I I""
1 :!
. I I !
- 11'11 N ll'Ii-o 0'1""'" <<I;N ~
'.... 11'1 ....,....,...
! I ..o!
I :
I I
:1
....
....
.0
....N
....
O'ON....
NN
....1
I
I
NN~ II'IIN
.... Il'IN
....
~J
%'W
wit!)
ulz
(l::<
Uj. :I:
Q.lu
I
........,N
~!
....1
!
4' a)i-t
,...,
I
I
I
I
,
i I
I II-
~ I II...J
.... I ~ w
~exl ~ ffi
r:l W I wo
:I: ... I 0 U"'Vl ~
...J fj I fi3~>a5~tJ !b
< ;:) >01:<01:0"'%)0%
"'Z"'oC ex wa.:>oC... I -%I~
_W...J WXoCoC...JVlZVlw %
~XQVlWCl:lotZacl.bwO;:)uoo
(l::"'~Z2ea:l<;:)l.b!CXZCl:l"'SVl
~~'I::Dt:,~ I~a:l! ~c~
I~
I
''''l
1 ; I
i I I
10........111 ....10 ON l-t ma-
l.... !........ I
I i I I
I! i I
<<I '"' ....1 ....I:e ~ N ~ i.o
I i I
I I 1
l"'l I I !mm
I i I
I Iii I I
!~ N 11'110 0 NI,." 0 ...J.o 0 010 11'1 ""'10.. 0 010' N
I. · · · · '1. · .1 · · .1 · · · · · .1" I
N"" -O.1l'I 0 0111'1 ~I"" 010 N O'N 0 NO'
a) ~N!""<<I ....I~ N'I"" ~I~<<I 1l'II-o ~IO' 11'1
ii' 1
co .... 010 <<111'1 "'" 0 -t,,~ 0 a)l<<l -0 -01-00 ottO ,..
. . .1. . . . . .1 . . .1. . . . . _I I I
co 0....1 '"' N N ....'0' :xlICO "" ~ -Il 0 0 .... 0'
,... l'l\ "" <<I ....11."1 N!I-.o l1)i,O' -0 It'I,.o 0 Ol,a) \t'I
I . I I ~~i
~ '" "'10 0 ....10 0 mlQ' 0 010' to ""1-0 0 oio 0
i" II' I · I I II I I .11 . II I I II I ,
Igj ~ ~i Inl ~ ~ Ig Iri ~II~ g I~ ~
I I .... I""
I I! I I i
10 "r ""\'" ~ ",1-0 "'" "" 0'.1- -0 NII-o oll'm.o
IU~1 ~~ !~ I=~T T~
1<<IlI'Il'l'Iil O':!.I'~ -Ill", a)11l'I<<I\t'II['O....NIII'IO'
ONN, '''~ !N 1<<I""l'l\-Il i"r....
.~ I (f"lI4 1 i ....
! i I I i
i I i I I !
i""NNI NI ....0 !O,...\t'\!Q).... 1-00'
.... ' i .... I'"' I I
I I I
I I i
I [ I I I : i
IN N NI,., N >>1[>> w ,.,',., N "'!,N'" NI,.,... N!'" N
IN -t Il'IjO 0 a) to 0 -tiO 0 O:\t'I N LI'IIN 0 l'l'Iill'l a)
, . 'I' · -I. · -I. · .1,' · .1. · .[. ·
.... -D NO 0 lniN 0 m,o:l iN.... ""'i'" 0 "'i'" N
~ -t ....,\/", N -'I O;LI'I 'N.... '1'" 0 0>'1 N
I ! . -i' t ~
1+ I Ill" I~++ li+ il 1+,++ 1;1 +
I I j I i
j i j I i
1""11'1 -t!~ ~ N,liLl'l O-IN ~I... Ol'l'l:~ 01,... N
0- 11'1 -0' N'" NI.... I.... to -.oleo I"IILI'I -0
.... I '" I I.... I"", ' I'"
, ! I Ii;
I Iii
! i i : I ,
'I"'" l'l'I -0 IN .... ... '-0 .... a):"" 0> !-D ... "r'~ ... N '\1"1 Q'
I: <<I Lnj .... ~'Im Ni~ itO,... -.o!a- 1\1"1 ~
" I I,' !
, . I I
1 i ' I I '
10- -.0 .0 'N Q'ill'l'" '" lr'1'l !"", l'l'I ....!N.... 'lfI \1"1
I...... I ""1 !-' i..... ~ ,.o4i...-t ......
....
1-0
i
I
I
I""
I I
I~
IN
I
I~
I.:
IN
IIl'I
! I
I~
1
!
I~
I....
iN
I-
iN
,
ieo
:.0
'Xl
I
I'"
,0
!.-t
~
~
,a.
I
... IU3 I- i
- . > I
W I ...I~ U
, Ll. ' I -Z:Jet: I
~~ !II-~ i ZVlI~ ~~- ~I~~ i
~ 5 1% a. lOw ot ... Q III (l:: ~
-cO .wo "'VlO VlZX:O-
VlU II:"'X![ ...2@ % <=~ F;, f!Ii
, SQ.ln ;:)w!VU).....J... -
_C~ ...J -Vl"'Ll.~Z~e w ~~
_ a.: Z...J~-~~_u) ~Q w~~~
~wQ w<~~o ...Je 0'" ~W~O
~~l.b~ ...J0~1Il a:l ~O~~~~
" "~'!OZIOCO~ ~~~OVl~U~~ ...J
oC 0" I-OCW~WOCC~~--~VI- ...J
Q.b~~ In>F.ill.Vl, U)o!C...JQ\-wu e
!
I
I
I.... a-
111'1 -0
!
I
i", 11'1
l"r 11'1
I
I
I
itO ~
I '"'
i
i
,
I
I
I
I-D ,...
. .
Iml'l\
II'I-t
I
1
I
i~ 0-
~. .
~N
'LI'I -t
I
:", t'D
~. .
10' \t'I
:-t m
!
l"rm
1-0 .t'
Ii"- 0'
I
I
1-.0 a)
:It' -0
i~ 0'
I
1011'1
ItO 0'
I
I
i
~~
I. .
:N ~
il +
i
,
i
:"" In
:NIl'I
.~ ....
~N
I
<<1-0
;~ :G
r-<N
Nit'
'.0 ..c
..."1
..J
I <
...
o
I-
....
lJ:
g~
b:
I
1-1-
Q:;IX
~:
8G
CITY OF WOODBURN
Community Development
MEMORANDUM
270 Montgomery Street
Woodburn, Oregon 97071
(503) 982-5250
Date:
November 1, 2001
To:
Jim Mulder, Community Development Director
From:
Building Division
Subject:
Building Activity for October 2001
1999 2000 2001
Dollar Dollar Dollar
No. Amount No. Amount No. Amount
New Residence Value 15 $1,792,667 7 $707,555 10 $1,149,471
Multi Family 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Residential Adds & Alts 3 $14,800 3 $28,316 2 $43,000
Industrial 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Commercial Value 0 $0 0 $0 1 $13,000
Signs, Fences, Driveways 4 $5,842 2 $660,000 2 $2,200
Manufactured Homes 0 $0 0 $0 1 $49,000
TOTALS 22 $1,813,309 12 $1,395,871 16 $1,256,671
July 1 - June 30
Fiscal Year To Date $9,141,871 $4,041,546 $23,645,350
l:\Community Developmenl\BldglBuilding Activity\Building Activity - 2001 \activity - October 2001.wpd
8H
MEMO
DATE:
City Council through City AdministratOl#'
Public Works Direct~~~
November 8, 2001
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Information on Rainier Road Traffic Analysis and Planned Action
INFORMATION:
This information is being provided to the council regarding the action planned by the staff in response
to the request for installation of speed bumps on Rainier Road.
ACTION TO BE TAKEN IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS
1. Two 25 mph speed signs will be installed on Rainier Road at the following locations:
A) At southeast intersection of Rainier and Country Club
B) At northwest intersection of Rainier and Astor Way
2. An Engineering Technician will inform the chief petitioner of city's technical decision and
action.
BACKGROUND:
The background information, which includes police department's traffic data collection and civil
engineering technician's analysis and recommendation, is detailed in the attached memo from Julie
Moore to the Public Works Director.
GST:lg
GSTIRainierTrafficStudy
8H
MEMO
Subject:
Public Works Director
Julie Moore, C. E. Tech I~
Rainier Road Traffic Analysis
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
November 8, 200 I
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that two 25-mph speed signs be installed along Rainier Road, one just east of
Country Club Road and one just west of Astor Way. Because of the proximity ofHwy. 214 and
the possibility of cut through traffic, these signs will remind motorists of the speed limit in a
residential area
BACKGROUND:
Residents in the 1500 block of Rainier Road sent a petition to the Public Works Director
requesting something be done to slow the traffic in this area. The residents stated that there is a
lot of cut through traffic, both vehicular and pedestrian, trying to avoid Hwy. 214 especially at
rush hour. They are concerned with the safety of pedestrians, golf carts and bicycles and
requested traffic modifications be made to slow down the traffic. There are no sidewalks in this
area so pedestrians walk in the street.
The Police Department collected traffic data in the 1500 block of Rainier from September 19-
September 27. The westbound traffic count had an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 84 with an
85th percentile speed of 25 mph or less. The eastbound traffic had an ADT of 110 with an 85th
percentile speed of25 mph or less. The highest volume of traffic appears to be between 11 a.m.
and 5 p.rn. This section of Rainier does not meet warrants for any further traffic control devices.
However, signs may be needed elsewhere. Currently there are 25-mph signs on Astor Way north
ofHwy. 214, on Broughton Way north ofHwy. 214 and on Country Club Road north of Rainier
Road. There are stop signs on Broughton at Rainier, a three way stop at the RainierIDellmoor
intersection, and a three way stop at RainierIPrinceton intersection. There is no speed sign at the
either the east-end or west-end of Rainier. MUTCD states that speed signs be placed where
speeds change or where needed to remind motorists of the speed in that area.
Therefore, it is being recommended that because of the proximity to Hwy. 214 that two 25 mph
speed signs be installed along Rainier Road. One sign east of Country Club Road and the other
sign west of Astor Way. These additional signs will help remind motorists of the speed through
a residential area.
Project #2001.064-21
000
~
~~~L ~
tr<;r L :c
,~5r L_ "
99r L ffi
88r L ~
96r L Z
001>L
OL1>L
C_!~:J1:L_
0:'; J~rtL
..,'.,- i~~
: .<-
<,
....:j
,..~J.
__9? H
09H
OSH
8t8L
SnH
S<;SL
o SLSt
0:';-"-"'-
9L6L
0:'; .--,
tLI 9~6 L
Z 9~6 L
~~-- ~ -.-.---
00
.c
0-
E
1l!J c
e 1.2\
Q.(/)(/)
f ~ ~~
; .......,
; :J
o
"
0>
c:
;~
o
lC)
0>
l""_'~
J.....,
.. ~~ :;:::~
~'~--', -p~ --'
~"" .~, ',--,
/:, ~.,,~'~ :--<
";:"" \,.... -"
0> "lC)
0> 10 00
0> 0> 0>
"
0>
'o~-6 ' -<f Ta;, , t"I:
o,Ol,~~<O:'Ot'
~ 10 ; 0: 0 0
~ '''- I ....- I
~
100;r<)''''':~;<O:0)
::l,lX)'~:<O:""IN,O
-;0)0!0;000
:-:_-~.~L~"=-T:=.~-~~~ !':..'i--~--
~ i~! ~,~l~!~ig
:l~r~I~!~~o;a
,:,...:.{ ;"oJ
("r' -,
-~-,--.
j-'
Og~l
"'It
N 01>t t
o
Z
OG7L
DSSt
.~~ :0- -
~
9L.L.L
otBI:
Q
Z
IU
--"- ...
'-... W'
IU
...
~-....--
~-I 1..,.
5~~
Z;Ot::
O~..~
22~-
r ~
668L
;
l~t~-~-._-_._.
,......'\,:;-;
!~~~
,~G.,._
....,l/) ..~
,C..;m
,...
"<it
00
.~o 3~
itl) r""jlt):
.~ ;;5:~'
!ViS
. ~-'-o-rIOT~'i co';:;fTb-fNliO'ioT~-rtO:c'nw";
O>ioo;IOIlC)I~iN;~im "1101~IN;~iO>I
O>Q)!Q):Q)imiQ)}O> 00 00,00 001001001")
~lX)I~
0\0
- -,..i_.
r:!~
/l
A.VM NOO3~O
i~i~!~ilC)i"l~i_I~!~I~!~\
8H
(/)
z (/)
C) z
tn l!)
..-. tn
:x:: ..-.
Q. :x::
X Q.
t.n ~ ~
N U')
- N ~
fH -
fil CI)
Q.
5; W ~
Q.
0 (/)
w C) C)
~ z z
~ ~
~
Q.
0 . .
.._,~_..,-,:~..."",;<c.';',".~, -,.r-" ..,.".,~....... -.. '~~"""'-'~.'W"""""'-'''''''''_~~~'~:''_''''''''-:''''~.~'''$'<'''
CITY OF WOODBURN
Community Development
lOA
MEMORANDUM
270 Montgomery Street
Woodburn, Oregon 97071
(503) 982-5246
Date:
November 13, 2001 $
Honorable Mayor and City Council thru City Administrator~
Jim Mulder, Director of Community Development 1;}r71
City Council Review of Planning Commission Dliision on Site Plan
Review Modification No. 01-10 (Woodburn Company Stores)
To:
From:
Subject:
RECOMMENDATION: In regard to this proposal, the City Council has the following
options:
(1) Concur with the Planning Commission's final order amending certain
conditions of approval in Site Plan Review 00-18.
(2) Amend the conditions of approval in a different manner.
(3) Do not amend the conditions of approval in Site Plan Review 00-18.
It is recommended that the City Council instruct staff to prepare an ordinance to..
substantiate your decision.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council at its October 22, 2001 meeting moved to call up for review the
Planning Commission's decision regarding Site Plan Review Modification 01-10. The
applicant for this proposal, Craig Realty Group, submitted an appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision on October 22, 2001, but withdrew the appeal on October 23,
2001 after the Council moved to call up the Planning Commission's decision for its
review.
In that the Council has called this project up for review, a de novo public hearing has
been scheduled and notice of said hearing has been sent to the applicant and all those
who testified orally or in writing at the Planning Commission hearing. The de novo
hearing before the Council will allow any party to provide new written or oral testimony
or evidence that pertains to this application. Since this will be a new public hearing, any
party that participates will also have the right to appeal the Council's decision to the
State Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA).
At its hearing of September 27, 2001, the Planning Commission considered a request
by Craig Realty Group to amend two conditions which were previously imposed on Site
Plan Review 00-18 which approved Phases II and III of the Woodburn Company Stores.
In its application, Craig Realty Group requested amendment of Conditions of Approval
No. 1 and No. 23 which provide as follows:
lOA
1. The proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the
approved development plan as shown on sheet AO.1, dated 7/03/01,
AO.2,AO.2b, A 1.3, A 1.4, A2, A2.2, A3.4-A3.6, A4.6 and A4.8, all dated
12/28/00, C-1, C-1 b, C-2, dated 12/20/00, L 1.1 and L 1.2 dated 07/03/01;
and Architectural Finishes Board, except as otherwise amended by these
conditions.
23. The east/west road identified as the Old Arney Road shall be constructed
to the City of Woodburn Standards and Specifications. Minimal cross-
sectional requirements shall be as a local access street as designated
within the Transportation System Plan. Maintenance responsibilities will
be assumed by the City even though a portion of the street will be within
Marion County. The street shall be renamed in accordance with the City
of Woodburn, Woodburn Fire District and Marion County requirements.
Provide proper right-of-way dedications for a local access street, 60 foot
minimum width. In addition, provide 10 foot wide utility easement on the
south side of the street for the installation of franchised utilities.
Specifically, the applicant requested the following modifications:
"...A. Eliminate the westerly driveway and the fire department turnaround [on
Arney Lane].
B. Construct a road consisting of a 44 [foot]-wide travel surface with curb,
gutter, sidewalk and planting strip on each side of Arney Lane between
Arney Road on the east and the west end of the easterly driveway on
Arney Lane.
C. Dedicate 60-feet of right-of-way to the City of Woodburn for Arney Lane
between Arney Road on the east and the west end of the easterly
driveway.
D. Widen the easterly driveway [on Arney Lane] to 36 feet to provide for truck
access to and from the Woodburn Company Stores.
E. Dedicate a public utility easement in favor of the City of Woodburn from
the west end of the Woodburn Company Stores property to the beginning
of the Arney Lane right-of-way consisting of a width between 25 to 42 feet.
The purpose of the public utilities easement is to accommodate a public
SPR Mod. 01-10 City Council Review 2
waterline and public storm drainage line to be installed by the applicant.
lOA
F. The applicant proposes to dedicate no right-of-way for Arney Lane west of
the west end of the easterly driveway nor to make any public
improvements beyond the easterly driveway.. ."
On October 11, 2001, the Planning Commission approved a final order amending the
conditions of approval in Site Plan Review Modification 01-10. The Planning
Commission approved all of the above requests except for "F". The Planning
Commission determined that the applicant must dedicate and improve Arney Lane as
was voluntarily proposed by the applicant and approved by the Planning Commission
under Site Plan Review 00-18. Site Plan Review 00-18 requires the dedication and
improvement of Arney Lane from existing Arney Road westerly to the west boundary of
the subject property. In its decision on Site Plan Review Modification 01-10, the
Planning Commission conditioned the proposal to allow the deferral of dedication and
improvement of Arney Lane to occupancy of Phase III which the applicant has stated
will be several years in the future.
ANAL YSIS:
Subsequent to the Council's calling up the Planning Commission decision on this
matter, the City Administrator, Director of Public Works, Director of Community
Development, and City Attorney have had discussions regarding potential defense of
the Planning Commission decision if it is challenged in court. The consensus of staff is
that the City would have a strong case to uphold the Planning Commission decision
based on the argument that the applicant waived its right to challenge the conditions of
approval on the original decision when it did not appeal Site Plan Review 00-18.
However, if the City were not successful with this argument, then staff believes it may
be difficult to make the. findings required under the "Dolan" case that would be
necessary to justify the required property exaction (Le., dedication and improvement of
Arney Lane west of the proposed new driveway).
As background, the United States Supreme Court decided in Dolan v. City of Tigard
that, in very basic terms, a local government must demonstrate that there is an essential
nexus or connection between the exaction and the furtherance of a legitimate
government interest, and that the exaction be roughly proportional to the burdens
created by the development.
Staff believes that there is sufficient evidence in the Planning Commission record to
demonstrate a nexus for the exaction. The extension of Arney Road to the west is
shown in the Woodburn Transportation System Plan (TSP) extending westerly from
Arney Road (Figure 29 "Street Functional Classification Plan") and connecting to
Woodland Avenue (Figure 32 "Public Transportation Plan"). This demonstrates that the
City has an adopted policy to extend Arney Lane to the west. In addition, property to
the west of the Woodburn Company Stores is designated for high density residential
SPR Mod. 01-10 City Council Review 3
development in the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan. This anticipates that this property
will be developed with multiple family dwellings. The Woodburn Zoning Ordinance
requires multiple family residential developments with more than 10 dwellings to provide
two means of access (WZO Section 10.080(c)). Sprague Lane at the south end of
Woodburn Company Stores currently provides the only means of public access to this
property. Extending Arney Lane westerly to this property provides the most logical and
feasible second means of public access to this property. This extension will clearly.
further the City's interest in ensuring that a connection can be made to Woodland
Avenue and that this property will be developed as planned by the Comprehensive
Plan.
lOA
Although staff believes that there is a clear nexus for the exaction, staff does not believe
that there is sufficient evidence in the record to demonstrate how much of the exaction
should be the responsibility of the applicant. In other words, it is not clear how much of
the dedication and improvement of Arney Lane the applicant should be required to
provide. It is apparent that the applicant will benefit by a connection of Arney Lane to
Woodland Avenue if that should occur in the future. However, the degree to which the
applicant would benefit is unclear and it has not been demonstrated in the record that
the proposed development needs this connection to function properly.
CONCLUSION AND ALTERNATIVES:
In conclusion, staff believes that the Council has a defensible position in regard to
upholding the Planning Commission's decision based on a finding that the applicant
originally agreed to the conditions of approval requiring the improvement and did not
appeal Site Plan Review 00-18. Another alternative is that the Council could require the
applicant to dedicate the necessary right of way for Arney Lane to the west boundary of
the subject property and require the applicant to enter into a non-remonstrance
agreement requiring the applicant to share in the cost of a Local Improvement District
for the future improvement of Arney Lane. The dedication will ensure that the right of
way for Arney Lane will be provided without the City or a third party being forced to
acquire it at a later date. The non-remonstrance agreement will provide the applicant
with relief from the responsibility for the entire cost of the Arney Lane improvement.
Staff recommends that if the Council requires the dedication and non-remonstrance
agreement rather than the full improvement, that an agreement to this modification be
obtained from Craig Realty Group so that future litigation can be avoided. Also, the
waiver issue should still be addressed in the findings so as to preserve this legal
argument.
Staff believes that the Council has the following alternatives pertaining to this
application:
1. Uphold the Planning Commission's decision on Site Plan Review Modification
01-10. This action will allow the applicant to modify its site plan as requested,
SPR Mod. 01-10 City Council Review 4
lOA
except that the applicant will be required to dedicate and improve Arney Lane as
the applicant had proposed in its original site plan application.
2. Reject the Planning Commission's decision on Site Plan Review Modification 01-
10. This action will require the applicant to develop the property as approved
under Site Plan Review 00-18. This action would not allow the proposed
modifications to the site plan and would require dedication and improvement of
Arney Lane across the entire north boundary of the subject site.
3. Modify the Planning Commission's decision on Site Plan Review Modification 01-
10 to require only dedication of Arney Lane and a non-remonstrance agreement
as discussed above in lieu of requiring dedication and improvement of Arney
Lane. This action will provide the right of way needed to create a second public
access from Arney Road to the property to the west of the Woodburn Company
Stores and will provide the transportation link identified in the TSP. The non-
remonstrance agreement will require the applicant to pay its fair share of
improvement costs for this right of way.
4. Modify the Planning Commission's decision on Site Plan Review Modification 01-
10 to correspond with the applicant's request. This action will allow the
applicant's proposed site plan modifications and will not require any dedication or
improvement of Arney Lane westerly of the proposed driveway on Arney Lane.
This action would force the City andlor a third party to acquire the necessary right
of way to extend Arney Lane to the west.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Planning Commission Final Order, dated 10/11/01
Attachment B: Planning Commission 9/27/01 Minutes
Attachment C: Planning Commission 9/27/01 Staff Report
Attachment D: Staff Memo to Planning Commission, dated 9/27/01
Attachment E: Applicant's Letter, dated 9/26/01
Attachment F: Letter from Martin Rohrer, dated 10/29/01
Attachment G: Letter from Michael Robinson, dated 1117/01
SPR Mod. 01-10 City Council Review 5
~
WOODBURN
ATTACHMENT A
lOA
ORE G 0 N
Incorporated 1889
IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF WOODBURN, OREGON
SITE PLAN REVIEW 01-10
)
FINAL ORDER
)
WHEREAS, a request was made by Craig Realty Group - Woodburn LLC for the
Planning Commission to hear a proposal for the modification of Case File No. Site
Plan Review 00-18 for Phases II and III of the Woodburn Company Stores listed as
follows:
"...A. Eliminate the westerly driveway and the fire department turnaround
[on Arney Lane].
B. Construct a road consisting of a 44 [foot]-wide travel surface with
curb, gutter, sidewalk and planting strip on each side of Arney Lane
between Arney Road on the east and the west end of the easterly
driveway on Arney Lane.
C. Dedicate eO-feet of right-of-way to the City of Woodburn for Arney
Lane between Arney Road on the east and the west end of the
easterly driveway.
D. Widen the easterly driveway [on Arney Lane] to 36 feet to provide
for truck access to and from the Woodburn Company Stores.
E. Dedicate a public utility easement in favor of the City of Woodburn
from the west end of the Woodburn Company Stores property to
the beginning ot the Arney Lane right-ot-way consisting of a width
between 25 to 42 feet. The purpose of the public utilities easement
is to accommodate a public waterline and public storm drainage
line to be installed by the applicant.
F. The applicant proposes to dedicate no right-of-way for Arney Lane
west of the west end of the easterly driveway nor to make any
public improvements beyond the easterly driveway... " located
northwest of the intersection of State Highway 214/219 and
Interstate Highway 5 at 1001 Arney Road, and;
FINAL ORDER - SPR 01-10
Page 1 of 1 2
Community Devdopment Department
270 Montgomery Strut · Woodburn, Oregon 97071
Ph.503-982-5246 · Fax 503-982-5244
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the matter at their regularly
scheduled meeting of September 27,2001, and;
lOA
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the written and oral testimony
presented by staff and the applicant, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission closed the hearing, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission moved to approve the modification of Site
Plan Review 00-18 for Phases II and III of the Woodburn Company Stores to allow for
(1) the elimination of the westerly driveway and the fire department turnaround on
Arney Lane; (2) the widening of the easterly driveway on Arney Lane to 36 feet to
provide for truck access to and from the Woodburn Company Stores; and (3) the
modification of conditions of approval #1 and #23 of SPR 00-18 to read as follows:
1. The proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the
approved development plan as shown on sheets AO.1, dated 7/03/01 (as
modified by sheets I and II, dated 09/07/01), AO.2, AO.2B, A1.3, A1.4,
A2, A2.2, A3.4 - A3.6, A4.6 & A4.8, all dated 12/28/00, C-1, C-1 B, C-2,
dated 12/20/00 (as modified by sheets I and II, dated 09/07/01), L 1.1 and
L 1.2 dated 07/03/01; and Architectural Finishes Board, except as
otherwise amended by these conditions.
23. The east/west road identified as the Old Arney Road [Arney Lane] shall be
constructed to City of Woodburn Standards and Specifications. Minimal
cross sectional requirements shall be as a local access street as
designated within the Transportation System Plan. The minimum right-of-
way width shall be 60 feet. A full street improvement along the entire
north property boundary is required, 34 feet wide curb to curb, with the
sidewalk on the south side. A 10-foot utility easement shall be required
on the south side of the dedication for the installation of franchised
utilities.
The applicant shall dedicate right-of-way adjacent to the north property
line to provide a minimum width of 60 feet, improve and dedicate the
street, and dedicate the 10-foot private utility easement. The right-of-way
dedication and road improvements may be phased. At minimum, the
applicant shall dedicate the right-of-way for the east portion of said Arney
Road to a point immediate west of the east access to Phase II and tully
improve that right-of-way before the City issues occupancy permits for
Phase II. These improvements are shown on sheets I and II dated
09/07/01. It the applicant has not dedicated the entire right-ot-way to the
west property line, then public easements tor water, storm sewer, sanitary
sewer and any franchised utility shall also be dedicated before the City
issues occupancy permits tor Phase II. All required right-ot-way and
FINAL ORDER - SPR 01-10
Page 2 of 1 2
street dedications and all required street improvements shall be
completed before the City issues occupancy permits for Phase III.
lOA
The City of Woodburn will not assume maintenance responsibilities for
any portion of Arney Road that does not meet current City standards.
Arney Road shall be renamed in accordance with the City of Woodburn,
Woodburn Fire District and Marion county requirements;
and instructed staff to prepare findings and conclusions.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED BY THE COMMISSION:
1. The Planning Commission hereby approves Site Plan Review 01-10
based on the findings and conclusions contained in Exhibit "A", and
subject to the conditions of approval contained in Exhibit "B", which are
attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein.
Approved:
A~R. ~~ .
Royce Young, hairpeOon
(O!I/O!
Date
FINAL ORDER - SPR 01-10
Page 3 of 1 2
EXHIBIT "A"
lOA
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
SITE PLAN REVIEW 01-10
I. APPLICATION INFORMATION:
Applicant and Property Owner:
Craig Realty Group - Woodburn LLC
1500 Quail Street #100
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Application Deemed Complete: August 29, 2001
120 Day Rule Deadline: December 26,2001
II. NATURE OF APPLICATION:
The applicant requested the modification of Case File No. Site Plan Review 00-18
for Phases II and III of the Woodburn Company Stores listed as follows:
"...A. Eliminate the westerly driveway and the fire department turnaround
[on Arney Lane].
B. Construct a road consisting of a 44 [footl-wide travel surface with
curb, gutter, sidewalk and planting strip on each side of Arney Lane
between Arney Road on the east and the west end of the easterly
driveway on Arney Lane.
C. Dedicate 60-feet of right-of-way to the City of Woodburn for Arney
Lane between Arney Road on the east and the west end of the
easterly driveway.
D. Widen the easterly driveway [on Arney Lane] to 36 feet to provide
for truck access to and from the Woodburn Company Stores.
E. Dedicate a public utility easement in favor of the City of Woodburn
from the west end of the Woodburn Company Stores property to
the beginning of the Arney Lane right-of-way consisting of a width
between 25 to 42 feet. The purpose of the public utilities easement
is to accommodate a public waterline and public storm drainage
line to be installed by the applicant.
SPR 01-10 - Final Order
Page 4 of 1 2
F.
The applicant proposes to dedicate no right-of-way for Arney Lane
west of the west end of the easterly driveway nor to make any
public improvements beyond the easterly driveway..."
lOA
III. RELEVANT FACTS:
The applicant has completed Phase I of the Woodburn Company Stores which
totals 245,090 square feet of building area. The Planning Commission approved
with conditions Phases II and III of the Woodburn Company Stores on July 26,
2001 (Case File #s: Site Plan Review 00-18 & Variance 01-09). Phase II includes
72,632 square feet and approximately 596 parking spaces. Phase III includes
78,947 square feet.
The subject site is located northwest of the intersection of State Highway
214/219 and Interstate Highway 5 at 1001 Arney Road. The property is
identified specifically on Marion County Tax Assessor's Maps as T5S, R2W,
Section12B, Tax Lot 101.
IV. RELEVANT APPROVAL CRITERIA:
A. Woodburn Zoning Ordinance:
1. Chapter 7 Public Hearings
2. Chapter 10 Off Street Parking, Loading & Driveway Standards
3. Chapter 11 Site Plan Review
Section 11.070 (d)
8. Woodburn Transportation Systems Plan
v. ANALYSIS:
A. Woodburn Zoning Ordinance:
1. Chapter 7 Public Hearings
FINDING: Property owners within the notification area were noticed
20 days prior to the public hearing. A public hearing was held on
September 27, 2001 in order to provide the opportunity for public
comment. This approval criteria has been met.
2. Chapter 10 Off Street Parking, Loading & Driveway Standards
Section 10.080 Driveway Standards
(d) Commercial and Industrial driveway widths, number
and location shall be evaluated at the time of Site
SPR 01-10 - Final Order Page 5 of 12
lOA
Plan or Building Permit SUBMITTAL and reviewed
against existing City Engineering standards and
land use policies.
However, no driveway shall be more than 26 feet
unless it is shared access with a,n adjoining
property, then it may be up to 34 feet wide.
Other allowed variations may be outlined below:
(1) Two lane approach for entrance and exit
having a mix of car and truck traffic of 28
feet.
(2) 36 feet for a three lane approach having a left
turn lane.
(3) Approach for Industrial truck traffic may be
up to 39 feet.
FINDING: The applicant is proposing to close the westerly driveway and
widen the easterly driveway on Arney Lane from 26 feet to 36 feet to
provide for truck access to and from the Woodburn Company Stores.
Section 10.080(d)(3) of the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance, listed above,
allows an industrial truck traffic approach to be up to 39 feet. The
applicant has shown on the submitted Arney Lane Plan dated 09/07/01 a
heavy pavement truck route along the north side of the property to the
proposed 36-foot easterly driveway access on Arney Lane. This approval
criteria has been met.
3. Chapter 11 Site Plan Review:
Section 11.070 Criteria for Evaluating a Site Plan
(d) Access to the public streets shall minimize the impact of
traffic patterns. Whenever possible, direct access shall not be
allowed to arterial streets. Wherever possible, access shall be
shared with adjacent uses of a similar nature.
FINDING: In Phase I of the Woodburn Company Stores, south of Phases
II and III, the applicant realigned and fully improved Arney Road from
Hwy. 214 east to a point near 1-5 and then north to the north boundary of
the applicant's property. Those improvements are the subject of a
reimbursement district. Sprague Lane on the south edge of the site was
SPR 01-10 - Final Order
Page 6 of 1 2
lOA
also fully improved. Phase I has parking on the south and east and west
sides of the buildings. Phase I is provided access at two points on Arney
Road and at three points on Sprague Road which is served by Arney
Road.
In the site plan approval for Phase II and III, parking areas east of the
buildings and west of Arney Road is extended and additional parking is
provided on the north and east. All of the parking to serve all three
phases (2,040 spaces) will be completed in Phase II. The parking areas
surrounding the buildings will have a looped access system upon
completion of Phase II. Access or egress from most parking spaces will
be able to be obtained via the existing Arney Road to the east, Sprague
Lane to the north and the Arney Lane improvements that were approved
on the north in the site plan review for Phases II and III.
In the original application for Phases II and III, as part of Site Plan Review
00-18. the applicant proposed dedication of 70 feet of right of way and
improvement of Arney Lane located along the north boundary of Phases II
and Phases III. The applicant's proposed Arney Road improvements
included 40 feet of pavement and curbs, sidewalks and landscaping. The
applicant proposed to create two driveways from that proposed
improvement of Old Arney Lane, one to the east to access Phase II and
one to the west. In addition, a turnaround was proposed in the western
part of Arney Lane for fire apparatus. The applicant volunteered and
agreed to those improvements in the original application.
During the site plan review process for Phases II and III, the Public Works
Department responded that the City's local access street standards were
applicable to the improvements to Arney Lane. That standard calls for a
60 foot right of way, 34 feet of pavement, curbs, sidewalks and landscape
areas on both sides of the street. The City's site plan review approval
contained condition number 23 which addressed the Arney Lane
dedication and improvement requirements. The City reduced the
requirement from what the applicant proposed to what is called for in the
local access street standard in the Transportation System Plan.
In this modification of conditions request (SPR -1-10), the applicant is
proposing to not improve Arney Lane across the entire north property line,
to eliminate the westerly driveway and the turnaround on Arney Lane and
to increase the width of the eastern access driveway from 26 feet to 36-
feet.
The applicant has designed the now proposed 36 foot, rather than the
approved 26-foot, easterly driveway access on Arney Lane to
accommodate truck in addition to automobile traffic. This will allow
SPR 01-10 - Final Order
Page 7 of 1 2
lOA
delivery access at the north end of the development as well as at the
south end (via Sprague Lane). The Woodburn Fire District commented
that the minimum driveway access to within 150 feet of all sides of any
structure is available. In addition, the altered site plan dated 09/07/01
showing one easterly driveway access on Arney Lane is acceptable to the
Woodburn Fire District.
Condition of approval #23 of Case File No. Site Plan Review 00-18
concerned the Arney Lane improvements. The condition stated that:
"... The east/west road identified as Old Arney Road shall be
constructed to City of Woodburn Standards and Specification.
Minimal cross sectional requirements shall be as a local access
street as designated within the Transportation System Plan.
Maintenance responsibilities will be assumed by the city even
though a portion of the street will be within Marion County. The
street shall be renamed in accordance with the City of Woodburn,
Woodburn Fire District and Marion County requirements. Provide
proper right-of -way dedications for a local access street, 60 foot
minimum width. In addition provide 10 foot wide utility easement on
the south side of the street for the installation of franchised
utilities.. . "
The Planning Commission approved the modification of condition of
approval #23 of Case File No. Site Plan Review 00-18 only to allow
phasing of the street improvement and the right-of-way dedication. The
street could be constructed to accommodate the east access with Phase
II as the applicant proposes. However, the remaining portion would need
to be improved to the West boundary of the subject parcel prior to
occupancy of Phase I".
The property to the West of Phases II and "' of the Woodburn Company
Stores is designated for "residential development greater than 12 units per
acre" on the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Map. The street
improvements on Arney Lane, adjacent to the Woodburn Company Stores
property, would provide access to future development on the property to
the West of Phases II and III of the Woodburn Company Stores as well as
providing a potential local street connection from Arney Road to
Woodland Avenue as shown in the Woodburn Transportation System
Plan.
In addition to the fact that the City did not "impose" the Arney Lane street
improvements on the applicant is the fact that the applicant did not raise
an issue with the condition of approval when it was imposed in the July
2001 approval of the site design review application. The pre-hearing
SPR 01-10 - Final Order
Page 8 of 1 2
lOA
statement read to participants in the July hearing informed the applicant
that issues needed to be raised, including issues relating to conditions of
approval or constitutional issues, before the close of that hearing. The
applicant did not raise any concern at that time about the right of way
dedication or improvement requirements. Nor did the applicant raise any
constitutional issues concerning this condition or any other matter. The
Planning Commission concludes that the applicant waived his opportunity
to raise those issues.
The "Dolan" considerations apply when a local government exacts a
property interest from an applicant. In this proceeding to consider
whether to modify an adopted condition of approval, the City of Woodburn
is not imposing an exaction. The imposition was completed in July. In
this proceeding the Planning Commission is simply considering whether to
provide some relief from the condition of approval that is in force.
B. Woodburn Transportation System Plan
FINDING: The Woodburn Transportation System Plan designates Arney
Lane as a potential local street connection from Arney Road to Woodland
Avenue. Condition of approval #23 of Case File No. Site Plan Review 00-
18 stated that"... The easUwest road identified as Old Arney Road shall
be constructed to City of Woodburn Standards and Specification. Minimal
cross sectional requirements shall be as a local access street as
designated within the Transportation System Plan. Maintenance
responsibilities will be assumed by the city even though a portion of the
street will be within Marion County. The street shall be renamed in
accordance with the City of Woodburn, Woodburn Fire District and Marion
County requirements. Provide proper right-of -way dedications for a local
access street, 60 foot minimum width. In addition provide 10 foot wide
utility easement on the south side of the street for the installation of
franchised utilities..."
In response to the applicant's proposal for street improvements on Arney
Lane [Old Arney Road], the Planning Commission approved the
modification of condition of approval #23 of Case File No. Site Plan
Review 00-18 only to allow phasing of the street improvement and the
right-ot-way dedication. The street could be constructed to accommodate
the east access with Phase II as the applicant proposes. However. the
remaining portion would need to be improved to the West boundary of the
subject parcel prior to occupancy of Phase III.
As previously conditioned, the street improvement would need to meet
minimal cross sectional requirements for a local access street as
SPR 01-10 - Final Order
Page 9 of 1 2
lOA
designated within the Transportation System Plan. A full street
improvement is required, 34 feet wide curb to curb, with the sidewalk on
the South side. The minimum right of way width shall be 60 feet.
It has long been the policy of the City of Woodburn to require street
improvements adjacent to property that is developed. Street
improvements would be required along the full length of Arney Lane,
adjacent to the subject property, regardless if accesses are or are not
proposed along the entire length of the street. The improvement of Arney
Lane adjacent to the subject site will provide access to the property to the
west and provide for the future connection of Arney Road to Woodland
Avenue as identified in the Transportation System Plan.
VI CONCLUSION:
Based on the findings of fact contained herein, the Planning Commission
approves the elimination of the westerly driveway and the fire department
turnaround on Arney Lane as well as the widening of the proposed easterly
driveway on Arney Lane from 26 feet to 36 feet.
In response to the applicant's proposal for street improvements on Arney Lane
[Old Arney Road], the Planning Commission approves the modification of
condition of approval #23 of Case File No. Site Plan Review 00-18 only to allow
phasing of the street improvement and the right-of-way dedication. The street
would be constructed to accommodate the east access with Phase II as the
applicant proposes. The remaining portion would need to be improved to the
West boundary of the subject parcel prior to occupancy of Phase III.
As previously conditioned, the street improvement would need to meet minimal
cross sectional requirements for a local access street as designated within the
Transportation System Plan. A full street improvement is required, 34 feet wide
curb to curb, with the sidewalk on the South side. The minimum right-of-way
width shall be 60 feet and a 1 O-foot wide utility easement will be required on the
south side of the dedication for the installation of franchised utilities.
The City of Woodburn will not assume maintenance responsibilities for any
portion of Arney Lane that does not meet current city standards.
SPR 01-10 - Final Order
Page 1 0 of 1 2
lOA
EXHIBIT uB"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
SITE PLAN REVIEW 01-10
The Planning Commission approves the applicant's proposed site plan
modifications subject to the following revisions to conditions of approval of SPR
00-18:
1. The proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the
approved development plan as shown on sheets AO.1, dated 7/03/01 (as
modified by sheets I and II, dated 09/07/01), AO.2, AO.2B. A1.3, A1.4,
A2, A2.2, A3.4 - A3.6, A4.6 & A4.8, all dated 12/28/00, C-1, C-1 B. C-2,
dated 12/20100 (as modified by sheets I and II, dated 09/07/01), L 1.1 and
L 1.2 dated 07/03/01; and Architectural Finishes Board, except as
otherwise amended by these conditions.
23. The east/west road identified as the Old Arney Road [Arney Lane] shall be
constructed to City of Woodburn Standards and Specifications. Minimal
cross sectional requirements shall be as a local access street as
designated within the Transportation System Plan. The minimum right-of-
way width shall be 60 feet. A full street improvement along the entire
north property boundary is required. 34 feet wide curb to curb, with the
sidewalk on the south side. A 10-foot utility easement shall be required
on the south side of the dedication for the installation of franchised
utilities.
The applicant shall dedicate right-ot-way adjacent to the north property
line to provide a minimum width of 60 teet. improve and dedicate the
street, and dedicate the 10-foot private utility easement. The right-ot-way
dedication and road improvements may be phased. At minimum, the
applicant shall dedicate the right-of-way for the east portion of said Arney
Road to a point immediate west ot the east access to Phase II and fully
improve that right-of-way before the City issues occupancy permits for
Phase II. These improvements are shown on sheets I and II dated
09/07/01. If the applicant has not dedicated the entire right-of-way to the
west property line, then public easements for water, storm sewer, sanitary
sewer and any tranchised utility shall also be dedicated before the City
issues occupancy permits for Phase II. All required right-of-way and
street dedications and all required street improvements shall be
completed before the City issues occupancy permits for Phase III.
SPR 01-10 - Final Order
Page 11 of 1 2
lOA
The City of Woodburn will not assume maintenance responsibilities for
any portion of Arney Road that does not meet current City standards.
Arney Road shall be renamed in accordance with the City of Woodburn,
Woodburn Fire District and Marion county requirements.
SPR 01-10 - Final Order
Page 1 2 of 1 2
lOA
ATTACHMENT B
WOODBURN PLANNING COMMISSION
September 27,2001
CONVENED The Planning Commission met in a regularsession at 7:00 p.m. with Chairperson Young
presiding.
ROLL CALL
Chairperson
Vice Chairperson
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Young
Cox
Fletcher
Miller
Lima
Mill
Bandelow
Lonergan
P
P
P
A
P
P
P
P
Staff Present:
Jim Mulder, Community Development Director
Naomi Zwerdling, Senior Planner
Deniece Won, Assistant City Attorney
Chairperson Young provided an opening statement for Public Hearing.
MINUTES
A. Minutes of September 13. 2001 Plannina Commission Meetina
Commissioner Bandelow noted correction be made to her statement contained under Business from the
Commission to read ....the sewer line is being put in on Highway 214 down by the High School prior to the
sidewalks being put in..
Vice Chairperson Cox moved to approve the minutes with the noted correction. Commissioner Bandelow
seconded the motion. Motion carried.
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
None
COMMUNICATIONS
A. City Council Meetina of AUQust. 27. 2001
PUBLIC HEARING
A. Site Plan Review 01-01. Lot Line Adiustment 01-07 and Variance 01-12. 102.082 SQuare foot
expansion of the existinQ store located at 3002 Stacv Allison Way. Pacific Land Desian.
applicant (Continue hearina to October 11. 2001 meetina at applicant's reauest)
Staff explained the reason for the request for continuance is due to the fact that the applicant and Staff are
still working out a few details.
Commissioner Loneroan moved to accept the applicant's request to continue the hearing to October 11, 2001.
Commissioner Lima seconded the motion, which unanimously carried.
B. Site Plan Review 01-10. amend condition of approval #1 and condition of approval #23 of Site
Plan Reylew 01-18. Woodburn Company Stores. Crala Realty Group. applicant
Staff read the applicable ORS Statement and provided a presentation as reflected in the Staff Report. She
entered two items into the record (Exhibit I - Letter from Michael Robinson of Stoel Rives in response to the
Site Plan Review Staff Report 01-10; Exhibit J - Memorandum from Community Development Department
regarding the revision of Condition of Approval #23 as part of Site Plan Review 01-10).
Planning Commission Meeting - September 27. 2001
Page 1 of 8
lOA
Vice Chairperson Cox remarked part of the statement made at the beginning of a hearing is that an applicant
cannot later raise constitutional issues if they do not raise an issue in a way that the Planning Commission
can respond. He questioned from a legal point of view whether this in effect is really for purposes of whether
they can reduce what they had been required to do before, whether they can come in now with a so called
"amended application" only less than two months after the original approval? Additionally, Vice Chairperson
Cox asked if the applicant is bound by the fact that these were not matters that were raised initially?
Deniece Won interjected Mr. Robinson's letter was received this morning and she has therefore, not had a
great deal of opportunity to explore the legal ramifications that he raises with respect to the Dolan case. She
indicated preliminarily their reaction is that he was obligated to raise the constitutional issues at the initial
evidentiary process and having not done so, those Dolan responsibilities are probably not applicable upon the
City at this point in time.
Commissioner Lima requested a brief overview of the Dolan case.
Deniece Won explained if you are going to require a developer to dedicate for public use some private right,
the government has a responsibility to make findings of facts to show that there is a connection between the
impact of the development and the dedication that they are requiring them to make or give and also to prove
that there is a roughly proportionally relationship between the impact and the dedication you are asking for.
She stated this was a United States Supreme Court decision.
Staff stated they are comfortable with the legal opinion at this point in time. He indicated they have also
reviewed it and agree with the opinion. Additionally, he reported the City does not have anything to prohibit
an applicant from coming back before the Commission because the applicant has a right to return. He also
commented the Commission has the right to act upon the application whether that be to approve or deny it
on merit. Staff said based on legal opinion we are not held to a Dolan standard at this point because the issue
was not raised at the initial Site Plan Review hearing.
Testimony by the Applicant
Mike Robinson. 900 SW 5th Ave.. Suite 2600, Portland. OR 97204-1268 stated he is here tonight on behalf
of Craig Realty Group. He commented this is the first time he has been here where Steve Craig and Staff
have not agreed on something. Additionally, he expressed his appreciation to Staff on how promptly they
reviewed this application and got it on the agenda. Mr. Robinson referred to Vice Chairperson Cox's concerns
and remarked he disagrees with the City Attorney's answer. He said that this is a new application and it
should be judged under the standards that apply to it including constitutional law. Mr. Robinson further
commented it is fine if the City wants to take the position that having agreed to it once we are forever
prohibited in coming back in seeking to amend the application and change it but he does not think the courts
will agree to that. Additionally, he pointed out and summarized case, McCluervy, City of Springfield, LUBA
Case #99-121 which he believes is pretty closely on point. He quoted LUBA's decision for this particular case
"The fact the petitioner's may have been aware of the conditions of approval in the first case doesn't provide
a basis for concluding that they agreed to the imposition of the exactions or that the exactions imposed here
are roughly proportional to the impact of the proposed development." Mr. Robinson remarked we may have
a difference of opinion and he stated the way this works is that this is a new application and it needs to be
judged under the merits of the application but also the constitutional standards. He reported they are asking
to amend the conditions of approval that would allow Steven Craig to not have to improve the road, west of
the first driveway. Mr. Robinson pointed out Mr. Craig and his company have made substantial transportation
improvements, Le., overcrossing redesign over the freeway, Arney Road from Highway 211-214 up to the
Woodburn Company Stores project and Sprague Lane. Additionally, he stated Mr. Craig worked with the City
Attorney's staff to draft the Reimbursement Ordinance and they are now defending that in court and they are
paying for that defense. Mr. Robinson remarked Mr. Craig has gone out of his way to try and do what the City
wanted done but Arney Lane is literally the end of the road for two reasons. Firstly, because the economy has
changed. Whereas Mr. Craig was the one that proposed that Arney Lane be constructed and dedicated in
the way it was originally proposed, he now recognizes that it is something that is not necessary for the
Company Stores. He is trying to find ways to reduce the costs of completing Phase 2 and Phase 3 so he can
Planning Commission Meeting - September 27, 2001
Page 2 of 8
lOA
do them in an economic way. This is one of the things that he can do to reduce costs and really have no
impact on the public or the Company Stores at all. Secondly, Mr. Robinson indicated Arney Lane doesn't
really serve anybody. Woodbum Company Stores .is adequately served by the driveways on Arney Road and
it is taken care of by the east driveway on Arney Lane. He further stated the two homes that are still there are
served by existing Arney Lane and Woodburn Company Stores is served by what Mr. Craig is proposing to
develop which is the easterly driveway on Arney Lane. The properties off to the west are served by private
drives off Arney Lane. Mr. Robinson stated the opportunity to acquire that right-of-way is present if there is
insufficient right-of-way on their property. He asked the application be approved because the fact that Public
Works may want the road does not translate into a legal requirement that there be a road there. He stated
there is simply no code requirement that requires either the dedication or improvement. Mr. Robinson referred
to the issue raised in the Staff Report regarding a "long standing policy" and commented this is not something
that is adopted in the Land Use Regulations which are the only regulations that apply to this kind of application
and even if it is in the code, you still have to meet the Dolan standard. He stated there is no benefit to the
Woodburn Company Stores and there is no evidence that shows that they need this for traffic or safety
reasons. Mr. Robinson noted that the Woodburn Company Stores realignment of Arney Road and Arney Lane
actually reduced the impact on Arney Lane. In closing, Mr. Robinson said if the Commission adopts the
conditions recommended by Staff, it is still a cost that is unjustified by law that Mr. Craig will have to bear
when he does Phase 3. He commented irregardless on how you look at it, it is a cost that he has to measure
against the return of that property. He asked that the Commission make a decision tonight if at all possible.
Commissioner Mill asked whether there is a financial partner involved i.e., Teacher's Annuity?
Mike Robinson replied he does not know. He stated Craig Realty Group, Woodburn-LLC is a partnership and
Mr. Craig has investors. Mr. Robinson further remarked, as far as he knows, it is primarily private individuals
and there aren't any public entities or organizations involved.
Commissioner Fletcher inquired if Mr. Craig has discussed what the cost would be if he had to construct the
improvements?
Mike Robinson replied the cost has been discussed and he guesstimated it would be in the order of $250
thousand.
Testimony by Proponents
Marv Graves. General Manaaer. Woodburn Companv Stores. 2650 SW 2200 Ct.. Gresham. OR 97080 said
she is making her comments tonight on behalf of Steven Craig, Craig Realty Group and the Woodburn
Company Stores. She reported the center has proved to be fairly successful. It was indicated by Ms. Graves
that she assumes that all of the members of the Commission are pleased with the center's contribution to the
City and the presentation of the center to those outside of the City. She remarked there were significant cost
overruns with their Phase 1 construction due in part to all of the off-site improvements that were required of
them. Additionally, Ms. Graves reported sales the first year were above expectations but due to the economic
situation in this country, the sales have not been as robust as what they would have liked to have seen in their
second and third year. She stated the center needs to remain profitable for the tenants in order to sustain
the success of the center. Construction costs obviously translates into rent levels and rent levels in turn are
offset by sales. Ms. Graves indicated to build the second and third phases with all of the offsite
improvements, they feel do not really directly benefit the center, is proving to be more costly than what they
had anticipated. Furthermore, cost must be brought in line with projected profitability in order to move forward
with this construction. If not, it would not be advisable to push forward with construction at this time. In
closing, Ms. Graves asked for the Commission's consideration and assistance in helping them maintain the
success of the center and it's continued growth within the City of Woodburn.
Commissioner Mill requested a brief outline how the rent and common area charges are going to be
determined for a new tenant.
Marv Graves explained the rent will be based on what the market will handle and where they feel they would
Planning Commission Meeting - September 27, 2001
Page 3 of 8
lOA
be profitable in order to maintain some level of sales. She stated there is a base rent and the common area
maintenance is based on what it costs them to run the center in a year. Ms. Graves further reported they are
locked into a certain percentage of increases each year. Additionally, the tenant also pays into a promotional
fund which allows them to promote the center as a factory outlet destination and they require that they make
a charitable contribution to the charity oftheir choice during the year. Furthermore, many of tenants also have,
in addition to their base rent, to pay percentage rent once they reach what they consider to be a break even
point. Ms. Graves further explained they compete with the standards that have been set by other factory outlet
centers in the country and based on the performance of the center and their sales per square foot sort of
dictates a lot of where those levels might end up.
Testimony by Opponents
Martin W. Rohrer. 16 Abelarde. Lake OsweQo. OR 97035 stated he is a property owner on Arney Lane. He
commented although he is speaking for himself, he might be expressing some of the same thoughts some
of the people further west on the road have. Mr. Rohrer said they have been very pleased with the
development that Craig Realty has done and he has very much been a supporter and has cooperated in
everything they have asked him to do. He indicated he is saddened to come here tonight to disagree with Mr.
Craig on this particular matter. Mr. Rohrer remarked those on the west end of the road have an economic
interest in the road being put in at this time. However, it also seems that a deal was sort of struck and now
they are asking to go back on it. The property owners along that road were asked to cooperate and support
the proposals they have made on the various stages and in exchange for that they thought they would get
what they agreed to do at the time. Mr. Rohrer also commented there are aesthetic, contractual and
economic issues because it could be quite a while before the property on the north side of Arney Lane is
brought into the City. He further stated until that happens, there is not going to be any improvements done
by the people along Arney Lane other than Craig Realty because they are the only ones that have any reasons
for doing anything at this point. Mr. Rohrer pointed out the road is very torn up and not nearly as convenient
an access as it was originally. He also commented just because the Dolan issue may be an open issue at
this point, it does not mean that the Commission has to take the position that it is unfair to ask them to do that.
Mr. Rohrer supports the Staff Report with respect to the Arney Lane improvement requirements.
Commissioner Mill requested clarification from Mr. Rohrer if he is in any way representing the other property
owners or his own interest.
Martin Rohrer responded he is representing his own interest tonight.
Commissioner Mill inquired Staff now many individual property owners are in the northern stretch that would
be affected by this roadway improvement?
Staff referred to the map and reported there are potentially five parcels.
Commissioner Lima questioned Mr. Rohrer whether he has talked to any of the other owners in that area
regarding the possibility of getting together with Craig Realty in sharing the costs for the improvements?
Martin Rohrer humorously answered they would be glad to do that if Commissioner Lima could arrange to
bring them into the City limits.
James Adney. 9075 Arney Lane. Woodburn. OR commented he has no problem with either keeping it a Lane
or a Road but would like a decision made so life can go on in the farming community.
Chairperson YounQ inquired if Mr. Adney has access into his property under the current configuration and is
it somewhat restricted by this project?
James Adney replied he does have access into his property under the current configuration. He also indicated
he is, at times, restricted by this project.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 27, 2001
Page 4 of 8
lOA
Vice Chairperson Cox asked if the east portion of the road is in worst condition than it was before the
relocation of Arney Road?
James Adnev responded it is in worst condition just from equipment running over it.
Applicant Rebuttal
Mike Robinson encouraged the Commission to ask him questions now so he has the opportunity to answer
them because it is particularly disappointing to attorneys to hear issues raised after the public hearing is
closed when he does not have the chance to address them. Mr. Robinson stated it is not Mr. Craig's
obligation to build a road just because the road might serve other people in the future. He noted that Mr.
Craig built the road all the way from the highway and back by the Texaco Gas Station. Mr. Robinson reported
when the Texaco Station owner sold the property that became Jack-in-the-Box, they would have had to build
that road if Mr. Craig hadn't done it. He announced that property owner is presently in court opposing paying
his fair share on that road. Mr. Robinson remarked what happens is that everybody looks for Steve Craig to
build this because he apparently has deep pockets, he's from California and he builds nice shopping centers.
The reality is nobody wants to share in the cost. He questioned if it is something that Mr. Craig is creating that
makes the need for him to build that road to that width all the way to the property line? Mr. Robinson further
commented it is not fair to ask Mr. Craig to build the road if it is to serve other people or property that is not
in the City yet or to make a connection that is not even shown on the TSP. Mr. Robinson requested the
Commission to site it on whether the code requires it or whether there is some evidence that requires Mr.
Craig to build it because of the impact to the center.
Vice ChairDerson Cox said if we did not require Mr. Craig to improve the road would he at least sign a
nonremonstrate agreement so that if sometime in the future, if and when the road is improved, that he would
not object to the formation of a local improvement district to distribute the cost in an equitable manner?
Mike Robinson responded Mr. Craig would not agree to that. He remarked when those folks want to develop
at urban levels they can set up a reimbursement district and assess Mr. Craig for it. He pointed out the code
states that Uanyone that pulls any building permit within ten years after the improvement is made is subject
to the reimbursement agreement." Mr. Robinson further stated Mr. Craig does not need on-street parking
on Arney Lane west of the east driveway and in fact the Woodburn Fire District has stated they are fine with
the proposed access. Additionally, he does not have any property that is served there and there is absolutely
nothing that is associated with Woodburn Company Stores that causes the need for the road to be improved.
Commissioner LonerQan inquired if there is a history that Craig Realty has said that they will improve that?
Mike Robinson replied affirmatively. He stated Public Works did not require Arney Lane at the width that it
is approved at, Steve Craig was the one that suggested that.
Discussion
Chairperson Younq closed the Public Hearing and opened discussion to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Mill remarked he heard some inconsistencies in statements made by the applicant. He
referred to the Springfield case that was cited by Mr. Robinson and commented there is no lapse in time in
this application. Additionally. he stated the applicant referred to the application as a new application and then
later on referred to it as an amended application. Commissioner Mill said it appears to him as a new
application and not an amended one. He stated he understands the economy has changed but at the end
of July when this was approved there were economic indicators indicating that the economy was starting a
down slide. Additionally, Commissioner Mill stated he feels the widening of the driveway is an excellent idea
and should be done irregardless. He also said he would be looking for other entries into that property if he
were a shopper there and would see a benefit to the property if that road was extended. Commissioner Mill
also noted he can foresee that street completely utilized during certain times of the year, i.e., Christmas retail
rush. In closing, he stated we should hold them to the improvements that were originally listed in the
application approved by the Commission on July 26, 2001 regarding the improvements of Arney Lane to the
Planning Commission Meeting - September 27. 2001
Page 5 of 8
lOA
west boundary of the property line and also to grant the applicant's request to widen that driveway.
Commissioner Bandelow agreed with Commission Mill. Additionally, she said she does not see an issue with
the widening of the driveway since the Fire Department does not have a problem with it. She said we are all
very pleased with the improvements that have been done by Mr. Craig. Commissioner Bandelow also
remarked Craig Realty was aware of the sliding economy two months ago and she feels an agreement is an
agreement. She stated having an improved road would be beneficial to Craig Realty if nothing else, just in
appearance, and would like them to see them stay with the agreement they made with the City and keep the
condition for the extension of Arney Road and improvements.
Vice Chairperson Cox remarked he does not think a reimbursement agreement would fit this situation at all.
He appreciates the economic dilemma that Craig Realty is in and he is willing to try to save them some money
at least in the short term and to cut down on the financial impact of this if it can be done in a way that does
not hurt our long range objectives and our duties as Planning Commissioners. Vice Chairperson Cox said
he is willing to go along with the Public Works staffs generated recommendation and this will give the
applicant some break in terms of up front costs and it will allow them to defer those costs until the time Phase
3 comes on line. He indicated it will preserve the City's and their obligation as Commissioners to provide for
the long range transportation needs of the community. Vice Chairperson Cox commented we can not wait
until the last piece of property is improved to require the improvements to be built in other portions. In closing,
he said he will vote in favor of Staffs recommendation.
Commissioner Fletcher commented he assumes the economics have changed, at least in the short run,
because of September 11th. He stated he would be persuaded by the arguments made so far to go ahead
and approve Staffs recommendation.
Commissioner Lima remarked this case is a reversal of what has happened before with the School District
where they did something and then came back saying they need our approval.
Commissioner Lonerqan concurred with his fellow Commissioners. He stated we have agreed to this and he
is not convinced that it should be changed at this point.
Chairperson YounQ clarified Condition #23 as presented in the Staff Report has been changed somewhat and
clarified in the memorandum presented to the Planning Commission this evening. He agreed that these
conditions were conditions of approval and were stated and addressed during the July meeting. Chairperson
Young expressed his wish to give the applicant the opportunity for not having to do them immediately but
would like to see that as part of the project.
Vice Chairperson Cox moved to amend Site Plan Review 01-10 Condition of Approval #1 as set forth in the
application and the Staff Report and partially amend Condition of Approval #23 of Site Plan Review 00-18
as stated in the original Staff Report including the language that was presented in the memorandum dated
September 27,2001 and subject to all the other conditions in the Staff Report and that Staff return with an
appropriate order to reflect the Commission's findings and decision. Vice Chairperson Cox requested findings
to also include Dolan issues. Commissioner Lima seconded the motion, which unanimously carried.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if the Final Order stands on it's own merit to go to the City Council?
Staff answered the order will be final unless appealed or called up by the City Council.
Deniece Won interjected given Mr. Robinson's argument there is also a possibility of a challenge for damages
in circuit court.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
A. Site Plan Review 01-11. reauest to build athletic facilities at Woodburn Hiah School. 1785 N.
- Front St.. Woodburn School District. applicant (Administrative approval)
Planning Commission Meeting - September 27, 200]
Page 6 of 8
lOA
Chairoerson Y ounQ explained this application is not being presented as a hearing because of the small size
of the structures that are being requested.
Commissioner loneraan moved to accept Staff's recommendation regarding Site Plan Review 01-11. Motion
was seconded by Commissioner lima. Motion unanimously carried.
Chairperson YounQ explained items for action, at one time, were simply addressed as discussion
items/administrative review. He stated it is much more definitive to have items for action because action is
needed by the Planning Commission in order for those to go forth as opposed to discussion items which are
something that we can discuss and not necessarily require action on the Commission's part.
B. Extension of Time for Planned Unit Development 97-03. Conditional Use 97-07 and Variance
97-12. Boones CrossinQ
Vice Chairoerson Cox moved to grant the extension as recommended by Staff for a period of two years in this
matter. Commissioner Mill seconded the motion, which unanimously carried.
Chairoerson Youna clarified this is to approve a request to extend the expiration date for submittal of final
plans to November 29, 2003.
C. Extension of Time for Variance 01-01 and 01-02. Partition at 1690 laurel Ave.
Chairperson Youna reported Staff recommends the Commission approve applicant's request to extend the
expiration date for six months to March 22, 2002.
Commissioner lima moved to approve the extension of time for Variance 01-01 and Variance 01-02. Motion
was seconded by Commissioner loneraan. Motion carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
REPORTS
A. Plannina Proiect Trackina Sheet (revised 9-17-01)
BUSINESS FROM THE COMMISSION
Chairoerson Youna reminded the Commission that business raised should be strictly pertaining to land use
issues. .
Commissioner Mill brought up the issue pertaining shopping carts being left all over the neighborhood. He
reported carts are being left for longer than a week specifically on Tierra lynn. He stated Shop-N-Cart needs
a phone call to remind them that they do have a responsibility to keep that up. Secondly, he related there was
a gentleman by the name of Fred Sugden who worked for the Wood bum Police Department for a number
of years and tragically died, not in the line of duty, but nonetheless he was an active City employee at the time
of his death. He stated he was very well loved and had good cross-cultural emphasis. Commissioner Mill
suggested it would be a fitting tribute to the man to, sometime in the future, if the opportunity arises, to name
some type of street after him.
Chairoerson Youna remarked that is probably a possibility because we have some subdivisions that the
streets have been labeled "A", "B" and "C..
Staff indicated that is a possibility. He stated the City does not have code provisions that directs them how
they name streets. However, Staff said they will be developing those in the new development ordinance. He
explained currently the policy is the developer submits whatever names they want and Staff reviews them for
appropriateness. Staff remarked he personally does not like "vanity names. , meaning developers naming
streets after themselves and their children.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 27. 200]
Page 7 of 8
Commissioner Fletcher inquired if the City adopts what the developer wants as far as naming streets? He
also asked who has the final say in the matter?
Staff replied Staff reviews it to make sure there aren't any conflicts. He restated his personal preference is lOA
not to have vanity names. Staff commented names should have some sort of relationship to the City or
community. He reported Staff reviews and approves street names.
Commissioner Fletcher further questioned if Staffs decision is non-appealable?
Staff responded the developer may appeal it if they wish to do so and it would come before the Planning
Commission at that point.
Vice Chairperson Cox quoted the Subdivision Ordinance "Plats that are submitted shall include the names
of the proposed streets." He commented this has been ignored many times. Vice Chairperson Cox reported
the final plat does not come before the Commission because it is an engineering job more than it is a planning
job and that is where the street names actually get recorded and signed off by the City.
Staff stated Staff has no objections to bringing the final plat before the Commission for their review.
Chairperson YounQ commented he signs the final plat as Chairperson of the Planning Commission and
therefore, he does have an opportunity to review it. He stated he has not paid close attention to the street
names at the time he signs the plats.
Commissioner Bandelow raised concerns regarding identified flying objects by the freeway interchange again.
She questioned whether there is something that can control these advertising blimps?
Deniece Won interjected there are some enforcement proceedings that have begun but she cannot inform
the Commission of the status.
Commissioner Bandelow inquired if the new sign ordinance will be coming up and will there be something
addressing improper use of signage?
Staff replied he personally wants to get the sign ordinance before the Commission as soon as possible
because he dislikes working with the current ordinance. However, the overall development code is a priority
at this time. He said it is a huge task and right now it is impossible to try to accomplish both tasks at the same
time. Staff stated he expects the sign ordinance to come soon after the development code is completed. He
hopes the development code will be presented in the form of workshops in December with a hearing to take
place in January and possibly come forward with the sign ordinance sometime in the Spring.
Commissioner Bandelow further commented temporary signs are put up everywhere. She said we are
defeating the purpose of trying to beautify the city and make it look like a city when we aren't enforcing the
ordinance already in place.
Vice Chairperson Cox interjected if you want to get rid of a bad law, start enforcing it.
Deniece Won remarked some of the problems with the code are in this enforcement provision.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner LonerQan moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Lima seconded the motion, which
carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
ATTEST
Jim
Co
Cit
~
(()It~/D'
DATE
PERSON
(jer.
unity Development Director
f Woodburn, Oregon
/tJ-:lr--O /
Date
Planning Commission Meeting - September 27, 200]
Page 8 of 8
lOA
ATTACHMENT C
CITY OF WOODBURN, OREGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
September 27,2001
SITE PLAN REVIEW 01-10
I. APPLICATION INFORMATION:
Applicant and Property Owner:
Craig Realty Group - Woodburn LLC
1500 Quail Street #100
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Application Deemed Complete: August 29,2001
120 Day Rule Deadline: December 26,2001
Staff Report Available for Public Review: September 20, 2001
II. NATURE OF APPLICATION:
The applicant is requesting the modification of Case File No. Site Plan Review 00-
18 for Phases II and III of the Woodburn Company Stores listed as follows:
".. .A. Eliminate the westerly driveway and the fire department
turnaround [on Arney Lane].
B. Con~ruct a road consisting of a 44 [foot]-wide travel surface
with curb, gutter, sidewalk and planting strip on each side of
Arney Lane between Arney Road on the east and the west end
of the easterly driveway on Arney Lane.
C. Dedicate 60-feet of right-ot-way to the City ot Woodburn tor Arney
Lane between Arney Road on the east and the west end of the
easterly driveway.
D. Widen the easterly driveway [on Arney Lane] to 36 feet to provide
for truck access to and from the Woodburn Company Stores.
E. Dedicate a public utility easement in favor of the City of Woodburn
from the west end of the Woodburn Company Stores property to
the beginning of the Arney Lane right-of-way consisting of a width
between 25 to 42 feet. The purpose of the public utilities easement
is to accommodate a public waterline and public storm drainage
SPR 01-10 Page 1 of 8
lOA
line to be installed by the applicant.
F. The applicant proposes to dedicate no right-of-way for Arney Lane
west of the west end of the easterly driveway nor to make any
public improvements beyond the easterly driveway..."
III. RELEVANT FACTS:
The applicant has completed Phase I of the Woodburn Company Stores which
totals 245.090 square feet of building area. The Planning Commission approved
with conditions Phases II and III of the Woodburn Company Stores on July 26.
2001 (Case File #s: Site Plan Review 00-18 & Variance 01-09). Phase II
includes 72,632 square feet and approximately 596 parking spaces. Phase
III includes 78,947 square feet.
The subject site is located northwest of the intersection of State Highway
214/219 and Interstate Highway 5 at 1001 Arney Road. The property is
identified specifically on Marion County Tax Assessor's Maps as T5S. R2W.
Section12B. Tax Lot 101.
IV . RELEVANT APPROVAL CRITERIA:
A. Woodburn Zoning Ordinance:
1 . Chapter 7 Public Hearings
2. Chapter 10 Off Street Parking. Loading & Driveway Standards
3. Chapter 11 Site Plan Review
Section 11.070 (d)
B. Woodburn Transportation Systems Plan
:.-
v. ANALYSIS:
A. Woodburn Zoning Ordinance:
1. Chapter 7 Public Hearings
STAFF COMMENT: Property owners within the notification area were
noticed 20 days prior to the public hearing. A public hearing will be
held in order to provide the opportunity for public comment.
2. Chapter 10 Off Street Parking, Loading & Driveway Standards
Section 10.080 Driveway Standards
SPR 01-10
Page 2 of 8
IDA
(d) Commercial and Industrial driveway widths, number
and location shall be evaluated at the time of Site
Plan or Building Permit SUBMITTAL and reviewed
against existing City Engineering standards and
land use policies.
However. no driveway shall be more than 26 feet
unless it is shared access with an adjoining
property, then it may be up to 34 feet wide.
Other allowed variations may be outlined below:
(1) Two lane approach for entrance and exit
having a mix of car and truck traffic of 28
feet.
(2) 36 feet for a three lane approach having a left
turn lane.
(3) Approach for Industrial truck traffic may be
up to 39 feet.
STAFF COMMENT: The applicant is proposing to close the westerly
driveway and widen the easterly driveway on Arney Lane from 26 feet
to 36 feet to provide for truck access to and from the Woodburn
Company Stores. Section 10.080(d)(3) of the Woodburn Zoning
Ordinance, listed above, allows an industrial truck traffic approach to
be up to 39- feet. The applicant has shown on the submitted Arney
Lane Plan dated 09/07/01 a heavy pavement truck route along the
north side of the property to the proposed 36-foot easterly driveway
access on Arney Lane.
3. Chapter 11 Site Plan Review:
Section 11.070 Criteria for Evaluating a Site Plan
(d) Access to the public streets shall minimize the impact of
traffic patterns. Whenever possible. direct access shall not be
allowed to arterial streets. Wherever possible. access shall be
shared with adjacent uses of a similar nature.
STAFF COMMENT: Two new driveways and a fire department turnaround
were proposed from Old Arney Road [Arney Lane] located to the north of
SPR 01-10
Page 3 of 8
lOA
the subject site as part of Case File No. Site Plan Review 00-18~ The
applicant is proposing to eliminate the westerly driveway and the fire
department turnaround on Arney Lane. The applicant is proposing to
keep the easterly driveway on Arney Lane.
The proposed Phases II and III of the Woodburn Company Stores will
share access from Arney Road and Sprague Lane utilizing the existing
driveways created for Phase I. The proposed 36 foot easterly driveway
access on Arney Lane has been designed by the applicant to
accommodate automobile and truck traffic. The Woodburn Fire District
commented that the minimum driveway access to within 150 feet of all
sides of any structure is available. In addition, the altered site plan dated
09/07/01 showing one easterly driveway access on Arney Lane is
acceptable to the Woodburn Fire District.
Condition of approval #23 of Case File No. Site Plan Review 00-18 states
that"... The east/west road identified as Old Arney Road shall be
constructed to City of Woodburn Standards and Specification. Minimal
cross sectional requirements shall be as a local access street as
designated within the Transportation System Plan. Maintenance
responsibilities will be assumed by the city even though a portion of
the street will be within Marion County. The street shall be renamed in
accordance with the City of Woodburn, Woodburn Fire District and
Marion County requirements. Provide proper right-of -way dedications
for a local access street, 60 foot minimum width. In addition provide
1 0 foot wide utility easement on the south side of the street for the
installation of franchised utilities..."
The Public Works Department commented that they would support
modifying condition of approval #23 of Case File No. Site Plan Review
00-18 only to allow phasing of the street improvement and the right-of-
way dedication. The street could be constructed to accommodate the
east access with Phase" as the applicant proposes. However, the
remaining portion would need to be improved to the West boundary of
the subject parcel prior to occupancy of Phase III.
The property to the West of Phases II and III of the Woodburn
Company Stores is designated for "residential development greater
than 12 units per acre" on the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Map.
The street improvements on Arney Lane, adjacent to the Woodburn
Company Stores property, would provide access to future
development on the property to the West of Phases II and III of the
Woodburn Company Stores as well as providing a potential local street
SPR 01-10
Page 4 of 8
lOA
connection from Arney Road to Woodland Avenue as shown in the
Woodburn Transportation System Plan.
B. Woodburn Transportation System Plan
STAFF COMMENT: The Woodburn Transportation System Plan
designates Arney Lane as a potential local street connection from Arney
Road to Woodland Avenue. Condition of approval #23 of Case File No.
Site Plan Review 00-18 stated that"... The east/west road identified as
Old Arney Road shall be constructed to City of Woodburn Standards
and Specification. Minimal cross sectional requirements shall be as a
local access street as designated within the Transportation System
Plan. Maintenance responsibilities will be assumed by the city even
though a portion of the street will be within Marion County. The street
shall be renamed in accordance with the City of Woodburn, Woodburn
Fire District and Marion County requirements. Provide proper right-of -
way dedications for a local access street, 60 foot minimum width. In
addition provide 1 0 foot wide utility easement on the south side of the
street for the installation of franchised utilities..."
In response to the applicant's proposal for street improvements on
Arney Lane [Old Arney Road], the Public Works Department
commented that they would support modifying condition of approval
#23 of Case File No. Site Plan Review 00-18 only to allow phasing of
the street improvement and the right-of-way dedication. The street
could be constructed to accommodate the east access with Phase II as
the applicant proposes. However, the remaining portion would need to
be improveato the West boundary of the subject parcel prior to
occupancy of Phase III.
As previously conditioned, the street improvement would need to meet
minimal cross sectional requirements for a local access street as
designated within the Transportation System Plan. A full street
improvement is required, 34 feet wide curb to curb, with the sidewalk
on the South side. The minimum right of way width shall be 60 feet.
This can be a phased dedication with public easements for utilities on
private property, specifically for the water main, the storm sewer and
any franchised utility. Or the right-of-way could be dedicated with
Phase II. In addition, as previously conditioned, a 1 Q-foot wide utility
easement will be required on the south side of the dedication for the
installation of franchised utilities. The City of Woodburn will not
assume maintenance responsibilities for any portion of Arney Lane that
does not meet current city standards.
SPR 01-10
Page 5 of 8
lOA
It has long been the policy of the City of Woodburn to require street
improvements adjacent to property that is developed. Street
improvements would be required along the full length of Arney Lane,
adjacent to the subject property, regardless if accesses are or are not
proposed along the entire length of the street. The improvement of
Arney Lane adjacent to the subject site will provide access to the
property to the west and provide for the future connection of Arney
Road to Woodland Avenue as identified in the Transportation System
Plan.
VI CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the information in this report, staff supports the elimination of the
westerly driveway and the fire department turnaround on Arney Lane as well as
the widening of the proposed easterly driveway on Arney Lane from 26 feet to 36
feet. The Woodburn Fire District commented that the one easterly driveway
access on Arney Lane is acceptable. Section 10.080(d)(3) of the Woodburn
Zoning Ordinance allows an industrial truck traffic approach to be up to 39
feet.
In response to the applicant's proposal for street improvements on Arney
Lane [Old Arney Road], staff would support modifying condition of approval
#23 of Case File No. Site Plan Review 00-18 only to allow phasing of the
street improvement and the right-of-way dedication. The street would be
constructed to accommodate the east access with Phase II as the applicant
proposes. The remaining portion would need to be improved to the West
boundary of the subject parcel prior to occupancy of Phase III.
As previously conditioned, the street improvement would need to meet
minimal cross sectional requirements for a local access street as designated
within the Transportation System Plan. A full street improvement is required,
34 feet wide curb to curb, with the sidewalk on the South side. The
minimum right-of-way width shall be 60 feet. This can be a phased
dedication with public easements for utilities on private property, specifically
for the water main, the storm sewer and any franchised utility. Or the right-
of-way could be dedicated with Phase II. In addition, as previously
conditioned, a 10-foot wide utility easement will be required on the south
side of the dedication for the installation of franchised utilities.
The City of Woodburn will not assume maintenance responsibilities for any
portion of Arney Lane that does not meet current city standards.
SPR 01-10
Page 6 of 8
lOA
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the applicant's
proposed site plan modifications subject to the following revisions to
conditions of approval of SPR 00-18:
1. The proposed developme'nt shall be in substantial conformance with
the approved development plan as shown on sheets AO.1, dated
7/03/01 (as modified by sheets I and II, dated 09/07/01), AO.2,
AO.2B, A 1.3, A 1.4, A2, A2.2, A3.4 - A3.6, A4.6 & A4.8, all dated
12/28/00, C-1, C-1 B, C-2, dated 12/20/00 (as modified by sheets I
and II, dated 09/07/01), L 1 . 1 and L1. 2 dated 07/03/01; and
Architectural Finishes Board, except as otherwise amended by these
conditions.
23. The east/west road identified as the Old Arney Road [Arney Lane] shall
be constructed to City of Woodburn ,Standards and Specification.
Minimal cross sectional requirements shall be as a local access street
as designated within the Transportation System Plan. A full street
improvement is required, 34 feet wide curb to curb, with the sidewalk
on the South side. The minimum right-of-way width shall be 60 feet.
This can be a phased dedication with public easements for utilities on
private property, specifically for the water main, the storm sewer and
any franchised utility. Or the right-of-way could be dedicated with
Phase II. A 10-foot wide utility easement shall be required on the
south side of the dedication for the installation of franchised utilities.
The City of Woodburn will not assume maintenance responsibilities for
any portionJ>f Arney Lane that does not meet current city standards.
The street shall be renamed in accordance with the City of Woodburn,
Woodburn Fire District and Marion County requirements.
The street shall be constructed to accommodate the east access on
Arney Lane, as shown on sheets I and II dated 09/07/01, with Phase II
of the Woodburn Company Stores. The remaining portion of Arney
Lane shall be improved to the West boundary of the subject parcel
prior to occupancy of Phase III.
VII ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A - Location and Zoning Map
Exhibit B - Notice of Public Hearing
Exhibit C - Public Works Comments
Exhibit D - Woodburn Fire District Comments
Exhibit E - Marion County Department of Public Works Comments
SPR 01-10
Page 7 of 8
'\
IDA
Exhibit F - Applicant's Statement of Intent
Exhibit G - Applicant's Proposed Improvement Plans
Exhibit H -Letter from Michael C. Robinson dated 09/10/01 regarding the public
notice criteria
SPR 01-10
Page 8 of 8
.]
lOA
ZONE MAP
LEGEND
D
rII
II
II
II
II
III
II CQ =:EIAL
II CBD=~ISTRICT
IIDDCftD[J\/NT[l'JN DESIGN AND
~VATI[]N DISTRICT
II ID INTERCHANGE
CDHHERSIAL
~ IS
III IP
IIIL
D IH
D
III
III
II
JIJ
-..-.--
RS SINGLE f'AMILY
RESIDENTIAL
RISSPECIAL SINGLE
RESIDENTIAL
RD ~TIAL
RL LIMITED MUL TI-f'AMIL Y
RESIDENTIAL
RM HUl.. TI -FAHIL Y
RESIDENTIAL
CO ~CIAL
CR alHMERCIAL
RETAIL
INDUSTRIAL
SALES
INDUSTRIAL
PARK
LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL
HIGH
TECHNOUXiY
PA PUBLIC AMUSEMENT
AND RECREATION
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
CEMETERIES
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
EIlUCA TUJoW.. f' ACILITIES
PUBLIC
PARK
PUBLIC
SERVICE
PC
PE
PP
PS
.
COODITUJoW.. USE
lIH:
NEIGHBIRDlD CDNSERVA TIOO
OVERLAY DISTRICT
Exhibit "A"
SUBJECT SITE
. :..
.; .
100
-
1400
-
III COft /
W OMIT
DLe H
5""2..,.)O/c'
.(
S'z,v()/n
---
I
I
l;
I
.
'000
-
103
.
.
:;
I
..
~
':
.. CCMI
1011
-
*
,00
......----.
101
1M""
~\
,/
I/(J()
PI'
WOODBU!lN 51 ES 11\3 03 (
GOL' COURSE TIV
IllO
.'UD
;J
t::J~<V
~v'\
~<Q~
~
5' zw 1'2.. A
00 03 0
t ~ fttk'
==~:=
= =r. =.-------------------.: - --
. ~---
L-'
? y~~f
103 03
"
...
....
'.... j\
:.:.,;~.; ...~~r~\ .: .~.:\.
~(.:.~,;;~~::it~:~ .
..,;.",:r,,~~~:,.,:. ~
?/..:'?/!ti:Jt;/
I.;~.~:.:t. ~'\t~~~:"~
<~;'''I.;'?: .~(:., .:.~.~.
.0."
lOA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NATURE OF APPLICATION/PROPOSED USE:
Site Plan Review 01-10: Proposal to amend conditions of approval #1 and #23 of
Case File No. Site Plan Review 00-18 for Phases II and III of the Woodburn
Company Stores. The proposed amendments to conditions of approval #1 and #23
would effect driveway access and street improvements on Arney Lane.
APPLICANT:
Craig Realty Group - Woodburn LLC
1500 Quail Street #100
Newport Beach, CA 92660
PROPERTY OWNER:
Same
LOCATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: The subject property is located at 1001 Arney
Road. It can be identified specifically on Marion County Assessor Map T5S, 2W,
Section 12B, Tax Lots 101 and 200.
HEARING DATElTIME: September 27,2001 at 7:00 p.m.
LOCATION: Woodburn City Hall, Council Chambers
DECISION MAKER: Woodburn Planning Commission
APPLICABLE ORDINANCE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CRITERIA:
1) WOODBURN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
2) WOODBURN ZONING ORDINANCE
Chapter 7. Public Hearings
Chapter 8. General Standards
Chapter 10. Off-Street Parking, Loading and Driveway Standards
Chapter 11. Site Plan Review
Chapter 29. CR - Commercial Retail District
3) WOODBURN LANDSCAPING POLICIES AND STANDARDS
4) WOODBURN SIGN ORDINANCE
5) WOODBURN TRANSPORTATIONS SYSTEM PLAN
ID WOODBURN ACCESS MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
Exhibit "B"
lOA
INFORMATION:
a) A copy of the application, all documents, and evidence relied upon by applicant
and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be
available at a reasonable cost.
b) A copy of the staff report will be available for inspection at no cost at least 7
days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost.
c) Any person wishing to speak either for or against this proposal may do so in
person or by an attorney at the public hearing.
d) Written comments may be filed with the Planning Director or submitted into the
record at the time of the public hearing.
e) The failure of an issue to be raised in a hearing, in person or by letter, or
failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision
maker an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the
land Use Board of Appeals based upon that issue.
PLEASE CONTACT THE FOllOWING REPRESENTATIVE FOR ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION:
NAOMI ZWERDLlNG, WOODBURN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
270 MONTGOMERY STREET, WOODBURN, OREGON 97071, (503) 982-5246.
]'0
\
WOODBURN
INTERCHANGE
~
..r
: ..
lOA
Site Plan Review
Woodburn Company Stores
Amend Conditions of approval
Public Works
Conditions of Approval
1. Public works would support modifying the condition only to allow phasing the
street improvement and the right-of-way dedication, The street could be
constructed to accommodate the east access with phase II as the applicant
proposes, however the remaining portion would need to be improved to the West
boundary of the subject parcel, prior to occupancy of Phase III.
As previously conditioned, the street improvement would need to meet minimal
cross sectional requirements for a local access street as designated within the
Transportation System Plan. A full street improvement is required, 34 feet wide
curb to curb, sidewalk on the South side.
The minimum right of way width shall be 60 feet, This can either be a phased
dedication with public easements for utilities on private property, specifically for
the water main, the storm sewer and any franchised utility. Or the right-of-way
could be dedicated with Phase II. In addition as previously conditioned a 10-foot
wide utility easement will be required on the so~th side of the dedication for the
installation of franchised utilities.
The City of W oodbum will not assume maintenance responsibilities for any
portion of Arney Lane that does not meet current city standards.
Exhibit "en
WOODBURN FIRE DISTRICT
Prevention Division
lOA
Site Plan Review Comments
Memo To: Naomi Zwerdling Sr. Planner
City of Woodburn
Date: 09-21-01
Rev.
From:
Robert Benck
Fire Marshal
Facility/ Project Name: Woodburn Co. Stores Phase II & III
Location: 100 I Arney Rd.
Occupancy Class: M
A. Access:
1. Exterior of Facility:
Minimum driveable access to within 150 feet ofall sides of any structures is
available. ( Alteration submitted on 9-07-01 for access points off of Arney Rd. and
Arney Lane are acceptable.)
2. To Interior of Facility:
Information not provided.
B. Building Exit System: Items to be addressed when plans are submitted to Building Official.
(Information provided below is a guide and may very during the formal review.)
1. Occupant Load: "10 be determined
2. Number of Exits: To be determined
3. Exit Hardware: Simple ( Key Locking on a single main door or pair of doors
entrance allowed)
4. Exit Signage: Required for secondary exits
5. Emergency Lighting: Required on Tenate spaces with occupant load of 100 or more.
C. Fire flow/ Water Supply:
Minimum of sprinkler system and hose requirements but not less than 2000 g.p.m.
Extend current system per design calculations. Add additional system as required .
Hydrants: Maintain an average spacing of not more than 400 feet around all sides
of the buildings.
E. Sprinkler/FDC:
Continue same process, lable system FDC to buildings covered.
Add additional 2 Wt Fire hose connections to provide for interior coverage of
complex.
F. Alarm System:
Exhibit "0"
As required to monitor fire sprinkler system.
lOA
G. Premise IdentifICation:
To be visible from public way and meet city of Wood bum standards.
H. Special Occupancy Requirements:
Portable fire extinguishers will be required.
Maximum storage height of 12 feet. unless requirements ofOUFC article 81 are
met.
I. Building Size & Limitations! Type of Construction:
Unlimited as provided by UBC.
J. Fire and Life Safety Review Requirement:
Will be provided by building official.
K. Special Comments:
An onsite water supply system must be available, operational and acceptable to the
city prior to the construction of combustible buildings. Access during construction
must support the weight of Fire Apparatus and allow access to facility.
COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REQUIREMENTS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE
PERMISSION TO BUILD. BUILDING PERMITS AND PLANS REVIEWS BY THE
APPROPRIATE BUILDING OFFICIAL IS REQUIRED. PERMITS AND APPROVED
PLANS MUST BE ONSITE DURING CONSTRUCTION.
WOODBURN FIRE DISTRICT
J 776 Newberg Hwy.
Woodburn, OR. 9707 J
(503) 982-2360 or 982-7305 ext. J 3
Fax (503) 981-5004
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
Randall Franke
Patti Milne
Mike Ryan
DIRECTOR
Robert J. Hansen, P.E., P.L.S.
ADMINISTRATION &
ENGINEERING
(503) 588-5036
FAX (503) 588-7970
COUNTY SURVEYOR'S
OFFICE
(503) 588-5155
FAX (503) 588-7970
OPERATIONS
(503) 588-5304
FAX (503) 588-7970
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
(503) 588-5108
FAX(503)589~3
PARKS
(503) 588-5036
FAX (503) 588-7970
Printed on Recycled Paper
Reduce 'Reuse .Recycle 'Recover
Marion County
OREGON
lOA
* REC'O tt
SEP 14 ZOOl
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS
WOODBURN COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
September 12, 2001
Naomi Zwerdling
City of Woodburn
270 Montgomery Street
Woodburn, OR 97071
RE: Site Plan Review 0 I-I 0
Phase II/III Woodburn Company Stores
Dear Ms. Zwerdling:
We are in receipt of the project referral for the above referenced site plan review.
Marion County Public Works has the following comments regarding the proposed
reduction in required improvements to Arney Lane:
It was our original agreement with the City that they would take over the
maintenance of Arney Lane even though a portion of it remained within the
County. As long as this still holds true, the County does not object to the
applicant's proposal.
· Although the Company Stores may not be presently impacting Arney Lane to
the west, the County would recommend that the City record a Non-
Remonstrance Agreement with Craig Realty Group that would require their
contribution to an improvement on Arney Lane in the future. This would
prevent an unreasonable burden on a future developer who may be required to
improve Arney Lane from the proposed terminus to provide access to a future
development.
.
When Arney Road was originally realigned, the County worked with the
neighbors in the area to get their input in renaming the portion of Old Arney
Road still in use. The general consensus from the neighbors was to rename
Old Arney Road to Arney Lane. To minimize the inconvenience to the
neighbors in having to change their address for the second time in three years,
the County would like to recommend that the name Arney Lane be retained, if
possible.
.
In initial reviews of the construction improvement plans, it was noted by the
County and the City that parking should not be allowed between the easterly
driveway and the intersectio~of Arney Lane with Arney Road. This
recommendation from the County still stands.
Administration I Enaineerlna I Survevor's I Ooerations I Emeraencv Mpn~..- _& 'h':b--:- ~E"
6155 SlIverton Road NE . Salem.Oreaon 97305-3\ Ex I It.
e-mail: mcdowl8>-ooen.ora . www.ooen.ora/marlol
lOA
Leter to Naomi Zwerdling
From Laurel Byer
RE: Site Plan Review 01-10, Phase II/III Woodburn Company Stores
September 12, 2001
Page 2
The County would like to review plans for the revised improvements to Arney Lane prior to
construction commencing.
If you have any questions, please call me or Byron Meadows at (503) 588-5036.
Sincerely,
0~r,~
Civil Engineering Associate
LB:kkr
c: Randy Scott, Woodburn Public Works
Craig Realty Group
Ray Engel, Westech Engineering
H:\ TYPING\LANDUSE\Corresp\ph31et. wpd
STOEL RIVES LLP
lOA
A T TOR N E Y S
tr REC'D *
AUG 2 8 2001
STANDARD INSURANCE CENTER
900 SW fIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 2600
PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-1268
PlIO'" 15031224-3380 Fax (503) 220-2480
TOO 15031221-1045
WOODDURN r.C.I,!,;JjUNln'
DEVELOPilDE OEPT
Internet: www.stoel.com
August 28, 2001
MICHAEL C. ROBINSON
Direct Dial
(503) 294-9194
email mcrobinson@stoel.com
VIA MESSENGER
Mr. James P. Mulder, Director
City of Woodburn Planning Department
270 Montgomery Street
Woodburn, OR 97071
Re: Application to Amend Site Plan Review Application (City of Woodburn File
No. Site Plan Review 00-18) for Woodburn Company Stores Phase IT and
m by Craig Realty Group-Woodburn, LLC
Dear Mr. Mulder:
This office represents-Craig Realty Group-Woodburn, LLC. Please find enclosed the
following documents:
1. A completed and signed City of Woodburn "Site Plan Review Application".
2. A check made payable to the City of Woodburn in the amount of $1,150 as the
applicable fee for a Site Plan Review application has been sent directly to you.
3. Eleven (11) copies of the site plan, consisting of two (2) sheets (Sheets" 1 of 2"
and "2 of 2").
4. Eleven (11) copies of the narrative addressing the applicable approval criteria.
5. A certified list of property owners within one hundred (100) feet of property
boundaries from the title company will be provided as soon as possible.
PorUu41-2Oll324S.1 002708()..()()()()1
Exhibit "F"
SEAm.E
PoRTLAND
VANCOuvu. WA
BoISE
SALT LAKE CITY
WASHINc.
STOEL RIVES LLP
lOA
Mr. Jim Mulder
August 28, 2001
Page 2
This application requests that the City of Woodburn Planning Commission amend
conditions of approval 1 and 23 to delete the requirement that Old Arney Road (also known as
Arney Lane) be fully improved west of the first driveway into the Woodburn Company Stores.
I am also 'Yriting to confirm the schedule for this application as follows:
1. Facilities Review meeting on September 4, at 1:00 p.m. at Woodburn City
Hall.
2. Notice of September 27 public hearing before the Planning Commission to be
mailed no later than September 7.
3. Staff report to be available on September 20.
4. Planning Commission public hearing on September 27.
Please feel free to call me at any time if you have any questions about this application
or require additional information. Please send me a cop of the staff report, a copy of the
public hearing notice, any official correspondence from the City concerning this application
and any correspondence received by the City concerning this application.
Jim, I want to thank you and your staff for agreeing to this expedited schedule. I will
assist you in any way possible in meeting this schedule.
Very truly yours,
MuM c. ~
Michael C. Robinson
MCR:clk
cc: Mr. Steve Craig (via U.S. mail and facsimile) (w/encls.)
Mr. Ray Engel (via facsimile) (w/encls.)
Mr. Pat Mahoney (via facsimile) (w/encls.)
Mr. Robert Zochert (via facsimile) (w/encls.)
Mr. John Donaldson (via facsimile)
Port1nd1-208324S.1 002708()'()()()()1
lOA
SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION
* REC'O *
AUG 2 8 2001
DIRECT QUESTIONS TO:
WOODBURN COMMUNITY
DEVElClPiltENT UEPT.
Craig Realty Group-Woodburn, LLC
(APPLICANT NAME)
1500 Quail Street, Suite 100, Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 224-4100
(ADDRESS) (TELEPHONE)
PROPERTY OWNER: Craig Realty Group-Woodburn, LLC
PROJECT NAME: Woodburn Company Stores, Phases II and III
West of Arney Road and south of Old Arney Road (Arney Lane)
LOCATION OF PROJECT:
MAP & TAX ACCOUNT NO(s): T5S R2W Section 12B, Tax lot 101
NAME OF DEVELOPER:
Craig Realty Group-Woodburn, LLC
ARCH./ENG.: KMA Architecture; Westech Engineering
Include 11 copies of the Site Plan including all the information required in the Zoning
Ordinance, for the particular type of development proposed. All materials are to be folded and
collated.
Include a detailed Statement of Intent, which describes the type and extent of the proposed
operation, any phasing of development being proposed, maintenance of landscaping, etc...
Applicant may use the attached statement page and/or include a separate statement along
with this application. The statement of intent should include a discussion of the applicable
approval criteria.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
APPLICATION CHECKLIST
OFFICE USE ONLY
Number of
Copies
Y/N
1. Site Plans"......................
(11 )
(11 )
( 4)
( 2)
( 1)
( 1)
2. Landscapellrriga'n Plans...
3. Architectural Plans ..........
4. Sign Plans ......................
5. Complete Application........
6. Statement of Intent ........
Date for Pre-application conference...Part I:
Scheduled Hearing Date............... .....:
Date of Engineering COnference.......Part II:
~ 6 . StandaRfl Document for &Ie Plan RevIew
. . lftn
I. ,
f' .
lOA.
8T A TEMENT OF INTeNT
See attached narrative
L'
'.
l certl~v .!,.IV~er D.(ull~l'l!I p,rovlded bv II'(\' that the Information con~ahjeR ,herein \a ,t'~ue:and"
acciJtlto to the belt of friv knowledge ond belief.
DATeD thIs ;;2., < " day of
A't.Jl'!.u.rr ,',' I ~ ~"'"
, . 0 . ' . . . '
, SIGNATURES, of each owner (huiband & wife.); contr~ot purc~.a.~1 repr....nt.tivo.
NAM!'
~DQ~II" it ~IP C~~I
T,' . . ",
~Ql1':r8~t Purchaser '
. . . .
~
"
~ "
f ..,.... ,
, .
.
". .
" .
" '
. 'Re(lr~.eQt~~lvB
, Michael C. Robinson
. .Stoel Rives, LLP .
~.: :
.1 ,
'900 SW Fifth Avenue~ Suite 2600
" . .
Portland, OR 97204':
Telepho.ne: '503-294.-9194'
pa;- I- 8~. PoCUlMf)t for lite Plin ~vIIw
, '1188
SEP-01-01 02:31PM FROM-stoll rlvls LLP
Name:
TO:
James P. Mulder
Steve Craig
Ray Engel
Robert Zochert
Randy Scott
N. Robert Shields
Name:
FROM: Michael C. Robinson
503 220 2480
T-165 P.00l1005 F-563
lOA
STOEL RIvES UP
ATTORNBYS
51 ANDARD INSURANCE CErITER
900 sw FIFTH A. VENUS. SUITE 2GOO
PORTLAND. OREGON 97.204-1268
TelBpMM (503) 2"14-3380
FeD: (S03) Z2().~480
Fax No.
CompanylFirm:
Office No.
503-982-5244
949~224-4101
1-503-585-3986
503-297-8997
503-982-5242
503-982-5243
Sender's Direct Dial:
Sender's Direct Email:
(503) 294-9194
mcrobinson@Stoel.com
Client: Matter:
DATE: September 7, 2001
No. of Pages (including this cover):
---
Originals Not Forwarded Unless Checked:
First Oass Mail
Overnight Delivery
Hand. Delivery
In case of error call the flP( operator at (503) 294-9508.
This facsimile may cOnlain corifide11tUlI infonnation that is proteCted by the attorney-client or work product privilege. If the
~er of this message is not the intended recipient or an employee responsible for delivering the facsimile, please do not
distribute thisfacsimile, notify us immediotely by telephone, and return thisfacsimile by mail. Thank you.
COMMENI'S:
1'0&614102050197.1 ~1
SEP-07-01 02:37PM FROY-stoel rives LLP
503 220 2480
T-765 P.002/005 F-563
SrOEL RIVES U.P
lOA
A T TOR ~ E Y S
51'ANOAICt) INSURANCE Ci>NTER
900 sYl J'lFTH AVliNUE. = :It.OO
POKrL."ND. OKl>CON 9T.tI\4-l26t1
I'IlOndso..1J 2201-33801 Ffrr (S{l3) 22o-u80
tOO (503) 221-TCHS
mt('f1let: www.>;toel.((lm
September 7, 200 1
MICHJ\& C. ROBWSON
DireCT Dial
(503) 294-9194
email rncrobinson@stoe1-com
VIA FACSIMILE
Mr. James P. Mulder, Director
City of Woodburn Community
Development Department
270 Montgomery Street
Woodburn, OR 97071
Re: Site Review Application by Craig RealtY Group-Woodburn, LLC
Dear Jim:
This office represents Craig Realty Group-Woodburn, LLC. I am writing following
our Facilities Review meeting on September 4. Please place this letter in the official
Woodburn Planning Department file for this application and before the Woodburn Planning
Commission at its public hearing on September 27.
1. Revised Plans.
As we discussed at the Facilities Review meeting, Craig Realty Group-Woodburn, LLC
(the" Applicant") proposes to modify the approved Site Review application in this application
as follows:
A. Eliminate the westerly driveway and the fire deparunent wmaround.
B. Construct a road consisting of a 44-wide travel surface with curb, gutter,
sidewalk. and planting strip on each side on Arney Lane between Arney
Road on the east and the west end of the easterly driveway on Arney
Lane.
PoIIla41-20841$U ~;00()06
lI5ATrUl
J'OIl'Il.AND
VANCIClUVI" W,.
IUGI
1t.I.1 I.AlCI On
WAIHlNCTOI'. O.c.
SEP-07-01 02:37PM FROM-itael rlvei LLP
503 220 2480
STOEL RIVES LlP
T-765 P.003/005 F-563
IDA
Mr. James Mulder
September 7, 200 1
Page 2
c. Dedicate 6O-feet of righ[-of-way to the City of Woodburn for Arney
Lane between Amey Road on the east and the west end of the easterly
driveway.
D. Widen the easterly driveway to 36 feet to provide for truck access to and
from the Woodburn Company Stores.
E. Dedicate a public utility easement in favor of the City of Woodburn
from the west: end of the Woodburn Company Stores property to the
beginning of the Arney Lane right-of-way consisting of a width between
25 and 42 feet. The purpose of the public utility easement is to
accommodate a public waterline and public storm drainage line to be
installed by the applicant.
F. The applicant proposes to dedicate no right-of-way for Arney Lane west
of the west end of the easterly driveway nor to make any public
improvements beyond the easterly driveway.
2. Other Clarifications to Anplication.
Randy Scott noted several needed claritlcari.ons (0 the application as explained below:
A. One single family home to the west of Arney Lane is located within the
CitY's Urban Growth Boundary ("UGB") but is not within the City.
B. The City of Woodburn Transportation System Plan ("TSP") shows a
"potential local street connection" west of Arney Road.
C. The City did not require the applicant to install a 44-foot wide road in
Arney Lane. Condition of approval 23 requires road improvements
consistent with the standards for an "access street with parking" (a 34-
foot wide street).
Additionally, Mr. Scott proposed two alternatives to the applicant's proposal. The first
alternative would be to construct a public street consistent with the "access street with
parking" standard described above to the west end of the Woodburn Company Stores property.
Alternatively, the City would bifurcate the Arney Lane improvements between phases II and
ill of the Woodburn Company Stores. The City would require improvements to the easterly
driveway with phase II and would defer further Arney Lane improvements until the completion
l'GcdDltl.~UU 0099~
SEP-07-01 02:38PM FROM-stoel rives LLP
503 220 2480
T-765 P.004/005 F-563
S'IOEL RIvES LU'
lOA
Mr. James Mulder
September 7, 2001
Page 3
of phase III. I have discussed the proposed alternatives to the application with my client, but
he believes that the best resolution of this matter is to proceed with this application.
3. Applicable Approval Criteria.
I underStaIld the City's policy is to require fun street improvemems adjacent to
development property. I further understand the City to acknowledge that no applicable
approval criteria for a Site Review application require such improvements.
The applicable Site Review approval criteria are found in Woodburn Zoning Ordinance
("WZO") chapter 11, "Site Review." None of the approval criteria incorporate by reference
or refer to other documents such as the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan ("WCP"), the
Woodburn Access Management Ordinance ("WAMO") or the Woodburn Transportation
System Plan ("TSP")-
Further, the Site Reyiew application is a limited land use decision as defmed in ORS
197.015(12). A limited land use decision includes Site Review applications within urban
growth boundaries. ORS 197-195(1) provides that only standards in acknowledged land use
regulations are applicable to limited land use decisions unless standards from coII1prehensive
plans have been incorporated intO acknowledged land use regulations. In this case, none of che
applicable WZO criteria incorporate or otherwise adopt any applicable standards from any
other document.
-
Additionally, the only document that I have found adopted by the City of Woodburn
that requires public street improvements to be made is the Woodburn Subdivision Ordinance.
However, the Site Review criteria in WZO chapter 11 do not inCOIporate the Woodburn
Zoning Ordinance as an applicable approval criteria. Moreover, the applicant is not proposing
to subdivide its properry, so the Woodburn Subdivision Ordinance is not an applicable
approval criteria.
While the TSP shows various street segments, the TSP does not apply to this
application either through the WZO or directly. Moreover, TSP section 11.4 at page 129
acknowledges that amendments to the WZO required to fully implement the TSP include
aIllending the zoning ordinance to make more references to the subdivision ordinance. Further,
TSP Figure 29 shows Arney Lane as a "potential local street connection." Nothing in the TSP
requires Arney Lane, a county facility, to be improved to city standards.
The only access to Woodburn Company Stores from Arney Lane will be the easterly
driveway. Between this point and Arney Road, the applicant proposes to fully improve Arney
Lane beyond the required City standard. Because Woodburn Company Stores will not create
PocdDdlo2lJ8.4154.1 ~.rooCllS
SEP-07-01 02:38PM F~stoel rives LLP
503 ZZO 2480
STOEL RIVES LLI'
1-765 P.005/D05 F-563
IDA
Mr. James Mulder
September 7, 2001
Page 4
any traffic west of the easterly driveway, there is no roughly proponional impact between
development of phases II and III of the W oodbum Company Stores and the need for dedication
and improvement of Arney Lane.
4. Revised Plans.
Mr. Ray Engel of WeStech Engineering will deliver fifteen (15) 22 inch by 34 inch
plans and one (1) 11 inch by 17 inch plan to you no later than today. Mr. Engel's revised
plans retlect the proposed development as described above.
Please let me know if you have further questions about this matter. I appreciate lhe
assistance of staff thus far in this application.
Very truly yours,
MJJ e- &LA
Michael C. Robinson
MCR:ipc
cc: Mr. Steve Craig (via facsimile and U.S. Mail)
Mr. Ray Engel (via facsimile)
Mr. Robert Zochen (via facsimile)
Mr. Randy Scott (via facSimile)
Mr. N. Robert Shields (via facsimile)
PordDcl1-20S4154.1 0099999~
lOA
APPLICATION BY CRAIG REALTY GROUP-WOODBURN, LLC
FOR SITE REVIEW APPROVAL
PURSUANT TO WOODBURN ZONING ORDINANCE ("WW") CHAPTER 11
TO AMEND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1 AND 23 IN THE CITY OF WOODBURN
FILE NO. SITE PLAN REVIEW 00-18 FOR WOODBURN
COMPANY STORES PHASES II AND III LOCATED WEST OF ARNEY ROAD AND
SOUTH OF OLD ARNEY ROAD (ARNEY LANE) IN THE COMMERCIAL
RETAIL ("CR") DISTRICT
A. DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION
I. Application Information
The City of Woodburn Planning Commission approved City of Woodburn File No. Site
Plan Review 00-18 on July 26, 200 I and the Planning Commission Chairman signed the findings
on the same day. No parties appeared in opposition to the Site Plan Review application during
that hearing either orally or in writing.
The approval contains two conditions of approval that this application seeks to amend.
Condition of approval I provides as follows:
"1. The proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved
development plan as shown on sheets AO.I, dated 7/03/01, AO.2, AO.2b, A1.3, AlA, A2, .A2.2,
A3.4-A3.6, A4.6 and A4.8, all dated 12/28/00, C-l, C-lb, C-2, dated 12/20/00,Ll.l and L1.2
dated 07/03/01; and Architectural Finishes Board, except as otherwise amended by these
conditions. "
Condition of approvaf 23 provides as follows:
"23. The east/west road identified as the Old Arney Road shall be constructed to the City
of Woodburn Standards and Specifications. Minimal cross-sectional requirements shall b~ as a
local access street as designated within the Transportation System Plan. Maintenance
responsibilities will be assumed by the City even though a portion of the street will be within
Marion County. The street shall be renamed in accordance with the City of Woodburn,
Woodburn Fire District and Marion County requirements. Provide proper right-of-way
dedications for a local access street, 60 foot minimum width. In addition, provide 10 foot wide
utility easement on the south side of the street for the installation of franchised utilities."
Old Arney Road is a substandard County road. The proposed improvements to Old Arney
Road would be constructed partly within the existing public right-of-way controlled by Marion
County and partly within a 60 foot wide right-of-way to be dedicated by Craig Realty Group.
PorlIndl.20S3260.1 00210S0-00001
1
-{:{ REC'D ~
AUG 2 8 2001
WOODBURN ('f'\I",~:','ITY
DEVELOPtJiE.I"1 uct'l. .
lOA
2. Applicant and Property Owner Information.
Craig Realty Group-Woodburn, LLC.
1500 Quail Street, Suite 100
Newport Beach, CA 92660.
3. Applicant's Representatives.
a. Michael C. Robinson
Stoel Rives, LLP
900 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2600
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: 503-294-9194
Facsimile: 503-220-2480
b. Ray Engel
Westech Engineering, Inc.
3841 Fairview Industrial Dr., S.E.
Suite 100
Salem, OR 97302
Telephone: 503-585-2474
Facsimile: 503-585-3986
4. Description of Site.
The site is located west of Arney Road and south of Old Arney Road. The site is
designated "Commercial" on Jhe City's Comprehensive Plan ("Plan") map and is zoned
Commercial Retail ("CR") on the City's zoning map.
5. Adjacent land us~ comprehensive plan and zoning map designation.
The property to the south is Woodburn Company Stores Phase I. This property is also
designated "Commercial" and zoned CR. The property to the north and west is outside of the
City of Wood bum and the City's Urban Growth Boundary ("UGB") and is zoned "Exclusive
Farm Use" pursuant to Statewide Planning Goal 3, "Agriculture". The property to the east across
Interstate-5 is within the City of Wood bum and consists of both Commercial and Residential Plan
designations and is developed accordingly.
6. Utilities.
Public utilities (water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage) are available at the site.
B. APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA
Pordndl-20S3260.1 OO270S0.00001
2
lOA
A. Woodburn Zoning Ordinance. Chapter 11. "Site Plan Review"
a. What Conditions of Approval 1 and 23 Require.
Conditions of approval I and 23 as relevant to Old Arney Road require that the road be
constructed from its terminus on the east with Arney Lane to the western boundary of Woodburn
Company Stores Phases II and III as shown on the drawings submitted by Woodburn Company
Stores and consistent with the Woodburn Transportation System Plan ("TSP") as a local service
street. The approval requires Woodburn Company Stores to construct a 44 foot wide road with
two travel lanes, on-street parking, curb, gutter, sidewalk and a planting strip on both sides. The
road width tapers to a narrower section west of the final westerly driveway. The conditions also
require that the applicant install a public storm drainage line with manholes and a public waterline
and dedicate right-of-way necessary for the roadway width and the utilities.
b. Proposed amendments.
The applicant proposes to amend the site plan approval and the improvement requirements
as follows. The applicant proposes to delete the westerly driveway to Woodburn Company
Stores Phases II and III. By doing so, the only access to Woodburn Company Stores Phases II
and III from Old Arney Road will be from the proposed easterly driveway. Because no traffic will
be able to reach W oodbum Company Stores Phases II and III by going west of the easterly
driveway, Woodburn Company Stores creates no impact on the existing County road. Moreover,
a grade difference and proposed landscaping between the road and the boundary of Woodburn
Company Stores will discourage people from parking on the County road and on the dedicated
but unimproved right-of-way as explained below and walking to the stores.
By proposiI~.g only the easterly driveway to the property, the applicant proposes to delete
the requirement for improvements west of that driveway and to install two fourteen foot (14')
wide with on-street parking on the south side travel lanes and curb, gutter and sidewalk
improvements on the south side only between Old Arney Road and the west el1d of the easterly
driveway. No improvements are proposed on the north side of the roadway with the exception of
improvements to accommodate existing residential driveways.1 (See Exhibit 1)
The applicant proposes that condition of approval 1 be amended by maintaining the
existing language and adding the following sentence: "The proposed development shall be in
substantial conformance with the revised development planas shown on sheets I of 2 and 2 of 2,
hereby amending the above-referenced sheets." Condition of approval 23 would be amended as
follows:
1Exhibit I (Sheet 1 of2) shows full improvements on both sides of Old Arney Road. This
narrative is correct.
POI11ndl-2083260.1 0027080-00001
3
lOA
"The east/west road identified as Old Arney Road shall be constructed to City of
Woodburn standards and specifications to the west side of the driveway on Old
Arney Road as follows: two 12 foot wide travel lanes, curb, gutter and sidewalk
on the south side and improvements necessary to accommodate existing residential
driveways on the north side. The City shall assume maintenance responsibilities of
the improved road even though a portion of the road will be within Marion
County. The street shall be renamed in accordance with the City of Woodburn,
Woodburn Fire District and Marion County requirements. Further, the applicant
shall provide right-of-way dedications for a local access street consisting of a 60
foot wide minium width to its westerly property boundary. In addition, the
applicant shall provide a ten (10) foot wide utility easement on the south side of
the right-of-way dedication and road improvement for the installation of franchised
utilities." (See Exhibit 2).
2. Applicable Approval Criteria.
Because this application amends an existing Site Review approval, only certain of the
approval criteria are relevant.
a. WZO Section 11.070(d).
WZO Section 11.070(d) provides: "Access to the public street shall minimize the impact
of traffic patterns. Whenever possible, direct access shall not be allowed to arterial streets.
Wherever possible, access shall be shared with adjacent uses of a similar nature."
RESPONSE:
The applicant proposes to amend the site plan by deleting the two (2) westerly driveways
and the Old Arney Road improvements as described above. Where the two driveways are now
shown, the applicant proposes to extend landscaping and buffers as otherwise shown on the site
plan.
Old Arney Road is a County road, not a City street. It is a local street because it serves
Woodburn Company Stores Phases II and III and residential and farm uses outside the City's
UGB.
The applicant's proposed amendment to conditions of approval 1 and 23 satisfies this
criterion. By minimizing access to Old Arney Road by maintaining only the one easterly
driveway, access shall minimize the impact of traffic patterns on the farm and residential uses to
the west and north. By providing access only to Woodburn Company Stores Phases II and III at
this point, no traffic from Woodburn Company Stores will go west. Should that issue arise, the
City could require the applicant to install signs at the end of the improved public road section
Port1nd1-2083260.1 0027080-00001
4
lOA
advising customers, employees and vendors that no access to Woodburn Company Stores is
provided west of that point and prohibiting on street parking.
Because no access is provided west of the easterly driveway, there is no impact from
Woodburn Company Stores that would require the County road to be improved. While the
applicant can agree to dedicate the right-of-way for a future public road to be installed by others
and can install public utilities as required, the improvements required by conditions of approval 1
and 23 are no longer necessary.
The other provisions ofWZO Section 11.070(d) are not relevant to this application.
The City can find that this criterion is satisfied.
b. Woodburn Transportation System Plan ("TSP").
The TSP does not address Old Arney Road improvements. It does show Old Arney Road
west of Arney Road as a "potential local street connection." (TSP page 87, Figure 29).
ill. CONCLUSION.
For these reasons, the City can find that this application should be approved and
conditions of approval 1 and 23 should be amended as described herein.
Portlndl-2083260.1 002708()..()()()()1
5
s.., OIl 2'001 ... II:........
tt:\D-.~...t,\~ '\Dnkr\Off-sit~ P1ot\RO'llOCDX.d.. (Bur*" ,.,..1 lab)
('<'f
__m "'"
Lf
.........m.1
I
.... I
I
i
........... !
I
"'" " I
.. i"
I
I
!
I
m"m I
.... i
!
I
I
i
i' i
--.-- !L.,_~: - f":
... --'_ 0 ~ ' I
/ -TL I ._~.. ~._~
~ I~" i
'1 '~I - I
I. .
il \\, I
,: J -I
Ii \'! : r
I /, ,: . I
II 1\';. ...
jl {"I "ii' 0_
! : 'M' ? i q-=-~~~;/. I__
II "~I': I ..-
I I !ti"" " /'/
'I "'>' I,' ./
'I ~~ I' " /
I -< .
,. I ~, I ;
I ~I i III
................. -I-.i ~I! j', I
mm ... r : ,I, : r! i
I II":! I I
I I I i
mm i I C , Ii'
! Tg..! I
I .1 I !Ill
SEE BELOW
_._--_.~.~._.~.....
I
....1
;
i
<>
:~g;\\
..........+...
;
i"
"C'>
"2
!il "......
r::l~
~--c ............
III
~..
'"
V'I ._._....~.....
i
;
....i....
I
,
"
"
!ti
r::l
::I
>
u
...
! !
i ~;~ \
i 1;" "
......J
i.
/
,
,
,
,
"
" '
'.
,
, ,
" j
"
,
"
,
"
ru ~
0
~
..,
" ...
" 0
L =
IX>
..1... 0
"
"
!ti
~ IS
I.., ... ....lIl
-< 0....
C'> -;; 1) (")
iD"g
~~z 8
'"
" ...1:$
0<:0:
.' r::Jn""CJi I I
" . ....g;rt:
'. gz!il
! m ....'"
I: ~ '<1-<"
.....- ....\ "....
0-<
.!:!:. n
,
~ o~
T =Ws;" ,~'! ,~~
M """".Ii ')....., ...:...- ..1
LL -~1filltl1~m1k~ ~: ) 1 '. .j
, I,,, _-":,-,,,-.:::l~~ ~~~..... .1. ',7- --.- ~-:;-.,;.-- --'t--:-.. ~.' ,_
.... ,:' ,,,,",, --.. --J6+00- - - -, )
"'1 ' .. --'<- '::':'>-.,,-- -~-~'::r-.=~!e--=---+-~. :)
Ll~c:-:;/S;;~~ __-:_;;-"'r;~.ARNE:f?P (30')_._____: :::'~,__. ':'_',:._' ~____ ;~ .f~
?rI', (" I 0 -----,1:12:
Y I"" , ~ .-; =i
; ~, " ~'~ ~ -<
'"
"
"~
~~
~,
",
",,,.........
'.
"Z...",
- Ox
l".l () Vi
o~...
lIl" Q
"'~::1
!!.-<~
lIl:IE
~
'"
III
".l
?Cjg
~8~
~ ~g
..zz
--<~
<:0:",
Sjo
",:IE
Vl
N
~ s I~ en
.... Z 0 :z:
o C"f1 J:::I
~ II~ ~
Craig Realty Group Newport Beach. CA
Woodburn Company Store.
Phase 11/111 Off-site Improvements
P r i
\IOlIN SCAU;
II V !\'ESTECM ENGINEERING, INC,
J'Jl.) CONSUL TING ENGINEERS AND PlANNERS
INt . DIC lOt ..
-....-
o ,"
FMrYClll:IOI..
-~-
ICAlO _,
Proposed Right-Of-Way
Adjustments
3f141 'airyl.. Indultrial 0,. s.c.. Suite 100. Solem. OR 97302
Phone: (~J) ~5-2-414 '0.: (SOJ) 585-3988
[-moil: .estecho..lteeh-IItl<j.com
CD'l ~. DI'I::bImIt J\, ...
OSN. RCE
ORN. RCE 1 '/0/01
CKO. RCE NO. OA 1E
OA1E:AUG 01
mm
DESCRIP ON
REVISIONS
C/)
fT1
."
o
-...l
N
o
o
-0.
!}
:0
m
(')
o
1:}
. ..
""""
o
>
-<
~
.,-4
\1'\
J
~
~
V\
~
~
~
r-J
~
---'
--
SNOlSiI\3~
NOLLdlll:lS30
uw
~O tlny:31. YO
30~ 'OllO
JOll 'NllO
JOll 'NSO
! J d
3l.YO 'ON
~ol./1 ~
.1
A~UH"=
==-"*.. 0
{:I
o
o
~,.u
t.::
~,
::: :~L
::~ ~'J
,{r
..-
c::>
c::>
N
t-
O
0....
W
en
;. .~
..: .J
'l.:.- '._
,) '-1
S:
~
~
i
I
I ~,
I i~
I,
,
,.
,
~ .....
,
,
,
,..
i.d.
~ ..
I.......
,
: ..~._._........
:....-........
,:i: .::
~---
: 1
:1'
,
,
: I
: I '_
, "
, I I~
: I
: I
! I
: 1
: 1
: I
: I
: I
---;
,
~l
+
,-
o
CI)
~!
7/
[]
:lI.'s.. :lllillM-]
:).6U11-'l:ll.1....t.t (,~) :~"c1
....-.8'; (';"0<;) "'J ..]';t,~-~~..."' ."'''J '>lit
'WO"S '001 011"$ m1
to.t. 110
]~N3 ~a lnsNOO
S~]NN~1d a11lN~~~IllN:i H:l1.LS3Jl
':lNI tlN
I
"
,
/ (.;{-;!
\:, ~
eUDl AeUJ't/
UDld
o III/II IlSD4d
'UllWllo\OJdWI 1l~IS-~ wnqpooM
s. .<uodwO:)
.IlJOlS dnoJ~ '<lIDll~ l)1D.()
'....dMllN
"10 '4::lD1l8 .-
~"
",,-.
\0
/j
.J
/
I
..
I-a
;~;
......
.'
\
\
~
'j
I
I"
I;
I
I
,
\
.. \
!-~ .
1Il ~
~ )C
,jj
--[.'~ ( \
:. L
~~ '..(\-
"-;0-
\~.' :1
V'...M-....,\~
"l!S.-IJO\~s..cJ\' ~~,:u .. 1OCJl1lO
..08) r..p ..,n, n",,)l'llci
(qDl '~.'IS ~
.
=
C)
=
...
:is
:c
~
w
SEP-l0-01 01 :43PM FROM-stoel rives LLP
503 220 2480
T-813 P,OOZ/005 F-S9Z
SrOEL RIVES UP
lOA
A T TOR N € Y S
STANDARD INSURANCI! CEN1CR
900 sw FIF11i AVENuE, Sl,JJrl:: :1.60()
PORTlAND,OIlEGON 9n04-1268
Ph"". (5OJ)U4-.3JBO fib: (5U3)120,2~80
TDD (503)221,1045
lntc:mc:t "W'WW_~~~CQm
September 10, 2001
MICHAEL C ROBINSON
Direct Dial
(503) 2~~9194
ermi1 mcrohinson@stoe!.com
VIA F ACSIMJLE
Mr. James P. Mulder, Director
City of Woodburn Community
Development Deparrment
270 Montgomery Street
Woodburn, OR 97071
Re: Application by Craig Realty Group~Woodburn, LLC
Dear Jim:
This office represents the applicant. I have reviewed the Notice of Planning
Commission hearing for September 27, I am writing to comment on the listed approval
cri tena.
This application is a limited land use decision as defined in ORS 197.015(12),
Pursuant to ORS 197.0195(1), only those standards outside of the land use regulations that are
expressly incorporated into the regulations may be applicable approval criteria, I have
reviewed the applicable approval criteria in Woodburn Zoning Ordinance Chapter 1 L The
approval criteria do not reference or incorporate other criteria, standards or documents.
Therefore, I would request that the Planning Commission limit its consideration of this
application to the criteria in Woodburn Zoning Ordinance Chapter 11,
Please place this letter in the official Woodburn Planning Department file for this
application and before the Woodburn Planning Commission at its meeting on September 27.
PonlDd1-Z084416.1 0099999-00006
SUATT\.."
.POclTLAND
V~OUV1:JC.. 'WA
BOUiU
SA..,. Lu:I: CnY
Exhibit "H"
W A.,"tK1'NYTOP\
SEP-l0-01 01 :43PM FROM-stoel rives LLP
503 220 2480
STOEL RIVES LLp
T-813 P,003/005 F-592
lOA
Mr. James Mulder
September 10, 2001
Page 2
As always, thank you for the assistance that you and your staff have provided to me on this
application. I very much appreciate your courtesy and diligence,
Very truly yours,
MuUC~
Michael C, Robinson
MCR:ipc
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Steve Craig (via facsimile and U.S. Mail) (w/enel.)
Mr. Ray Engel (via facsimile) (w/eneL)
Mr. Robert Zockert (via facsimile) (w/encl.)
Mr. N, Robert Shields (via facsimile) (w/enel.)
Po~ndl-2084,u6.1 00999SI9~
SEP-l0-01 01 :43PM FROM-stoel rives LLP
S03 220 2480
T-813 P,004/00S F-S92
lOA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NATURE OF APPLICATION/PROPOSED USE:
Site Plan Review 01-10: Proposal to amend conditions of approval # 1 and #23 of
Case File No. Site Plan Review 00-18 for Phases II and III of the Woodburn
Company Stores. The proposed amendments to conditions of approval #1 and #23
would effect driveway access and street improvements on Arney Lane.
APPLICANT:
Craig Realty Group - Woodburn LLC
1500 Quail Street if1 00
Newport Beach, CA 92660
PROPERTY OWNER:
Same
LOCATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: The subject property is located at 1001 Arney
Road, It can be identified specifically on Marion County Assessor Map T5S, 2W,
Section 128, Tax lots 101 and 200.
HEARING DATElTIME: September 27, 2001 at 7:00 p.m.
LOCATION: Woodburn City Hall, Council Chambers
DECISION MAKER: Woodburn Planning Commission
APPLICABLE ORDINANCE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CRITERIA:
1) WOODBURN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
2) WOODBURN ZONING ORDINANCE
Chapter 7. Public Hearings
Chapter 8. General Standards .
Chapter 10. Off-Street Parking, Loading' and Driveway Standards
Chapter 11_ Site Plan Review
Chapter 29. CR - Commercial Retail District
3) WOODBURN. LANDSCAPING POLICIES AND STANDARDS
4) WOODBURN SIGN ORDINANCE
5) WOODBURN TRANSPORTATIONS SYSTEM PLAN
22 WOODBURN ACCESS MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
SEP-l0-01 01 :44PM FROM-stoel rIVeS LLP
503 220 2480
T-813 PODS/DOS H92
lOA
INFORMATION:
a) A copy of the application, all documents, and evidence relied upon by applicant
and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be
available at a reasonable cost.
b) A copy of the staff report will be available for inspection at no cost at least 7
days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost.
c) Any person wishing to speak either ~or or against this proposal may do so in
person or by an attorney at the public hearing.
d) Written comments may be filed with the Planning Director or submitted into the
record at the time of the public hearing.
e) The failure of an issue to be raised in Oil hearing, in person or by letter, or
failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision
maker an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the
Land Use Board of Appeals based upon that issue.
PLEASE CONTACT THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTATIVE FOR ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION:
NAOMI ZWERDLlNG, WOODBURN COMMUNITY DEVEL,OPMENT DEPARTMENT,
270 MONTGOMERY STREET, WOODBURN, OREGON ,97071, (503) 982-5246,
~~J0
\
WOODBURN
INTERCHANGE
fEifl
r
'"
... ..
: II
ATTACHMENT 0
lOA
CITY OF WOODBURN
Community Development
MEMORANDUM
270 Montgomery Street
Woodburn, Oregon 97071
(503) 982-5246
Date:
September 27, 2001
To:
Woodburn Planning Commission
From:
Community Development Department
Subject:
Revision of Condition #23 for Site Plan Review 01-10
After further review of staffs proposed condition of approval #23 in the staff report for
Site Plan Review 01-10, staff recommend the following revised condition of approval:
23. The east/west road identified as the Old Arney Road [Arney Lane] shall be
constructed to City of Woodburn Standards and Specifications, Minimal cross
sectional requirements shall be as a local access street as designated within the
Transportation System Plan. The minimum right-of-way width shall be 60 feet. A
full street improvement along the entire north property boundary is required, 34
feet wide curb to curb, with the sidewalk on the south side. A 10-foot utility
easement shall be required on the south side of the dedication for the installation
of franchised utilities,
The applicant shall dedicate right-of-way adjacent to the north property line to
provide a minimum_width of 60 feet. improve and dedicate the street. and
dedicate the 10-foot private utility easement. The right-of-way dedication and
road improvements may be phased. At minimum, the applicant shall dedicate
the right-of-way for the east portion of said Arney Road to a point immediate west
of the east access to Phase II and fully improve that right-of-way before the City
issues occupancy permits for Phase II. These improvements are shown on
sheets I and II dated 09/07/01. If the applicant has not dedicated the entire
right-of-way to the west property line, then public easements for water, storm
sewer. sanitary sewer and any franchised utility shall also be dedicated before
the City issues occupancy permits for Phase II. All required right-of-way and
street dedications and all required street improvements shall be completed
before the City issues occupancy permits for Phase III.
The City of Woodburn will not assume maintenance responsibilities for any
portion of Arney Road that does not meet current City standards, Arney Road
shall be renamed in accordance with the City of Woodburn, Woodburn Fire
District and Marion county requirements.
Exhibit "J"
SEP-26-0 1 02: S9PM FROM-s toe I rives LLP
S03 220 2480
... ""''''''~ ,,.,""'^ ,. l"l"f'
STOEL RIvEs LLP
ATTACHMENT E1 OA
ATTORNEY:;
SEP 26 2001
51 ANDARD INSUl<ANCE CENTER
900 SW F1FTH A VENUE. SUITE 2GOO
PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-1268
Telephone (503) 224-3380
Fax (503) 220-2-130
WOODBURN COM/VIUNITl
DEVELOPMENT DEPT
Name: Fax No. Company/Firm:
TO: Naomi Zwerdling 503-982-5244 City of Woodburn
Steve Craig 949-224-4101 Craig Realty Group
Ray Engel lk503-585-3986 Westech Engineering
Robert Zochert 503-297-8997 SD Deacon
N. Robert Shields 503-982-5243 City of Woodburn
Office No.
503-982-5228
949-224-4100
503-982-5228
Name:
Sender's Direct Dial:
Sender's Direct Em.ail:
FROM: Michael C. Robinson
(503) 294-9194
mcrobinson@stoel.com
Client:
Matter:
DATE:
September 26, 2001
No. of Pages (including this cover):
Originals Not Forwarded Unless Checked:
First Class Mail
Overnight DeliveI}'
Hand DeliveI}'
In case of error call the fax operator at (503) 294-9508.
This facsimile may contain confidential information that is protected by the attorney-eliem or work product privilege. lfthe
reader of this messllge is not the intended reCipient Or an employee respOnsible for delivering the facsimile. please drJ not
distribute this facsimile, notify us imnzediaJely try Telephone, and return this facsimile by mail, Thank you.
COMMENTS:
Pol1l.lldl.208G018,1 0099999-{lOO(ll
Exhibit "I"
SEP-26-01
02:59PM FROM-stoel rives LLP
503 220 2480
~TOEL l{IVES LLP
T-525 P,002/003 F-066
A T TOR N E y S
lOA
S7ANDARO rNSUR>\NC~ CENTER
9011 5W FT~rH AV~NUr. Sum: 2~~O
PORTI.AND, OKECON 97204-1268
PhOn< (So..l; 221'3JOU F,U: (5U3) 220-2180
TDD fSO,lJ221,l04.5
Internet; W'W"t..,r.shlel.com
September 26, 2001
MICHAEL C. ROBINSON
Direct Dial
(503) 294.9194
em.1.il nx:robin.qun@sroel.com
VIA F ACSIMlLE
Ms. Naomi ZwerdLing, Planner
City of Woodburn Community
Development Department
270 Momgomery Street
WOodburn, OR 97071
Re: City of Woodburn File No. Site Plan Review 01-10; Application by Craig
Realty Group-Woodburn LLC
Dear Naomi:
Thank you for providing me with a copy of the Scaff Repon. I am writing concerning
three points in the staff report.
First, a Marion County lerrer, dated September 12, 2001 requests that Arney Lane be
dedicated and improved by Craig Realty Group ro the western boundary. This propeny is nor
within Marion County's jurisdiction and notwithstanding Marion County's comment, there is
no basis in the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance cited in the Staff Report (other than an unadopted
policy) for this requirement. While I appreciate Marion County's comment, it is not unfair ro
require those who would use me road in the future [0 build it in the future. Craig Realty
Group has no need to use the mad and will receive no benefit from its dedication or
eonsrrucrion,
Second, the Staff Report notes that only a policy requires improvement of roads
adjacent to frontage proposed for development. Unless there is an approval criterion Or unless
the city meets its burden of pruof under the Dolan case, there can be no lawful requirement for
this impro-vemem. ORS 227.178(3) provides that only those standards and Criteria in effect on
the date the application is submitted may be used to judge the application. Standards and
criteria are those contained in the city's acknowledged land use regulations, ORS 197.195(1),
l'nrtlDdl-101l60:l3.1 IM)9999!i--tUI06
SEA'TLJi
I'oKTLAND
VANCOt,vU. WA
Ilo19E
~^lT [..l.'IJ! Cn-r
WhSH.NGTON, D,c,
SEP-26-0 1 02: S9PM FROM-, toe I rive, LLP
S03 220 2480
OJ, \,JLL .t.'\.1 V m llP
T-S2S P,003/003 F-066
Ms. Naomi Zwerdling
September 26, 2001
Page 2
lOA
The Staff Repon suggests that Arney Lane should be constructed to provide access for
property nor presently within the city but within the ciry's Urban Growth Boundary ("UGB"),
The Transponation System Plan ("TSP") shows only au arrow ending slightly to the west of
Arney Road indicating a future local street. The TSP does not show Arney Lane as serving as
a collectOr for all to the propeny of the west wirhin the city's UGB. Further, until thar
property is annexed imo the city, there is no need to provide access,
Finally, the Woodburn Company Stores does not benefit in any way from dedication
and construction of Arney Lane past the easterly driveway. The need and benefit of the road
accrues to the properlY owners to the west at such time as they are able to develop urban uses,
Those property owners currently have access to me section of Arney Lane proposed to be
improved.
As always, r appreciare your courresy and assistance in this maner. Would you please
place this letter in the official Planning Deparnnent file for this application and before the
Planning Commission at the public hearing on September 271
Very rruly yours,
Mut& c ~
Michael C. Robinson
MCR:ipc
cc: Mr. Steve Craig (via facsimile and U.S. Mail)
Mr. Ray Engel (via facsimile)
Mr. Raben Zocken (via facsimile)
Mr. N, Robert Shields (via facsimile)
PC.rtln<ll-:m86(l23, I 00\I9999-00U06
-tl REC'D *
OCT 3 1 2001
ATTACHMENT F
lOA
WOODBURN COMMUNliY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
16 Abelard
Lake Oswego, OR 97035-2342
October 29,2001
Woodburn City Council
Woodburn City Hall
270 Montgomery ST
Woodburn, OR 97071
Re: Craig Realty Group---Woodburn LLC Appeal of Woodburn Planning Commission's
October 11,2001, Decision (9/27/01 hearing) regarding Site Plan Review 01-10.
Dear Mayor Jennings and Councilors:
You have set an appeal hearing date of November 13, 2001. I attended the September 27,
2001, Woodburn Planning Commission hearing and have several comments to share with
you regarding the issues that were raised at that hearing and which relate to the Dolan
case that was offered by Mr. Craig's attorney as the main reason that the improvements to
Arney Lane should not be required, I disagree with his view. However, before I begin
here, I do want to make it clear that I, and I believe the others who have properties
abutting Arney Lane to the west of Arney Road, are pleased with the development of
Woodburn Company Stores and the way in which Mr. Craig has kept his word on prior
matters, This is just an effort to help him keep his good record in tact. My comments are
as follows:
1, Property owners along Arney Lane used to be on the main road (Arney Road) and
had a bit less driving distance to the freeway exit. There is a relationship between a
direct route and value, and between distance and value. What value those property
owners gave up in agreeing to a rerouting of Arney Road they expected to get back in
the forn1 of the promised improvements to Arney Lane, as well as the value created
by the development of Woodburn Company Stores itself.
2. Not only do the property owners now have a longer and less direct route to the
freeway exit (and other destinations), but also the condition of the road has
deteriorated after several years of construction and no road repairs,
3, Both the City of Woodburn and the property owners along Arney Lane approved and
supported the plans for development presented by Craig Realty Group--- Woodburn
LLC. The developer voluntarily proposed the improvements to Arney Lane along the
full north property line of Woodburn Company Stores. They were not initiated by the
City as a requirement for approval, as they were to be in Dolan. The City and the
property owners did go along with and support the entire proposal of the developer, in
part because of the promises of the Arney Lane improvements.
4, Now, after taking the benefits of the City approvals for constmction of the buildings
in the development, the developer is requesting the elimination of the portion of its
plan that calls for the Arney Lane improvements, It seems a bit late to be trying to
change the deal after receiving the benefits,
lOA
Woodburn City Council
October 29,2001
Page 2
5, Onc of the main reasons givcn for making the requcst for the elimination of that road
improvement portion of the plan is that the developer has also requested and obtained
approval for the elimination of access to Arney Lane from the westerly portion of its
north property line, What the developer is essentially doing is saying it can find a
way to not need the road improvement by preventing access of its employees and
customers to Arney Lane, That would be like a residential developer trying to avoid
bui lding one-hal I' of its required road improvements in a residential development by
blocking off the streets in one direction,
6, The fact is that Woodburn Company Stores should make the fullest possible use of
Arney Lane [or at least three reasons, First, it should encourage employees to park in
back (west side) of the stores, For employees of the stores on the north part of the
property, the ideal exit would be out onto Al11ey Lane at the northwest pal1 of the
property. Second, Woodburn Company Stores will find that many employees and
quite a few customers from the Woodbul11 area will prefer going north on Arney
Road, over the Crosby Road overpass and into Woodburn from the north. Having
Al11ey Lane improved (and the access to it from the northwest part of the property)
will make that routing easier. Third, the planned modification would have access to
Arney Lane only at the northeast part of the property. What I am concerned about is
a back up of traffic at that access point and at Arney Lane's entrance to Arney Road,
That concern will become even more real if the traffic on Arney Lane increases
because of development of other properties to the west and north of Arney Lane or
because of eventual completion of an already planned connection to West Woodburn
residential areas, The access to Arney Lane from Woodburn Company Stores will be
easier if it is from the northwest comer of the property, where there is a distance to
the point at which Arney Lane connects with Arney Road,
7. It is worth noting that staff continues to recommend the improvements to Arney Lane
and the Woodburn Planning Commission, by a unanimous vote, agreed,
As indicated above, there are good reasons for now requiring these improvements to
Arney Lane and some of those reasons are directly related to the impacts created by
Woodburn Company Stores, the improvements are for the benefit of Wood bum Company
Stores (as well as to those other property owners with property abutting Arney Lane),
they are the very improvements originally offered by Woodbum Company Stores, and
they were the "bargained for" exchange for the other property owners supporting the
retail development and giving up their more direct and shorter access to the freeway exit.
These reasons all distinguish this situation from Dolan. I ask that you follow your staff
recommendation and affinn the decision of the Woodbum Planning Commission,
Very. truly yours,
/.~~
Martin W. Rohrer
NoV 07 2001 15:48 FR PERKINS COlE LLP
503 727 2222 TO
ATTACHMENT G lOA
PERKINS COlE LLP
12 ( 1 SOUTHWEST FIFTH AvENUt:, SUITE (500. PORTLAND, OREGON 972011-3715
TELEPHONE~ 503 727-2000 . FACSJMILE~ 503 727.2222
November 7, 2001
BY FACSIMILE
Mr. James p, Mulder, Director
City of Woodburn CommlUlity
Development Department
270 Montgomety Street
Woodburn, OR 97071
Re: Application by Craig Realty Group - Woodburn, LLC for Site
Review Approval
Dear Jim:
I am writing to provide additional evidence and argument for the City Council
hearing on November 13,2001. Please place this letter in the official Planning
Department file for the City Council's review in the upcoming appeal.
1. Off-site traffic impacts are not relevant under the City's Site
Plan Review criteria.
I have enclosed a copy of the case of Rich/and Enterprises, Inc. v. City of
Woodburn, 6 Or LUBA 60 (1982), This case holds that the city correctly interpreted
the Site Plan Review approval criteria in Woodburn Zoning Ordinance ("WZO")
section 11 as not including the review of off-site traffic problems and as being limited
only to on-site design issues. One of the Planning Commission's reasons for its
decision requiring Craig to build Arney Lane at the time he completes Phase 3 of the
W oodbmn Company Stores is the need for off-site traffic circulation. Under this
criterion, though, the Site Plan Review criteria cannot be used for this purpose.
2. Testimony by an adjacent resident and an adjacent property
owner only support the conclusion that the need for road has
nothing to do with the traffic impact of the Woodburn
Company Stores.
The only opponents to this application were an adjacent resident and an
adjacent property owner. They both said that they looked forward to the road to
provide access to their properties when they develop them in the future for urban uses.
ANomRAO Elt.LU::VUE BOISE DENVER HONe KONe LOS ANGELES MENLO PARK OLYMPIA PORTLAND SAN F'RANCISCO SEATTLE SPOKANE TAIPEI WASHINc;TON, D,C,
[OOOOO-oOOO/PAOI3100,035J
NOV 07 2001 15:49 FR PERKINS COlE LLP
503 727 2222 TO 95039825244
P.03/15
lOA
Mr. James P. Mulder
November 7.2001
Page 2
The only issue they raised about Craig's impact was damage to the existing road
surface
The City COllllCil can address the road surface issue by simply requiring that
Craig repair any damage done to the road. Moreover, because Arney Lane is a
County facility, if the County wants the road repaired, the COWlty can certainly ask
for that to be done.
3. A comment regarding the need for off-street parking during
the Christmas season is not a reason to require an adjacent
street.
One of the Planning Commissioners said during deliberation that he had seen
the property during the Christmas season and that he believed additional on-street
parking was necessary to accommodate Christmas season parking. My client can
provide evidence demonstrating that parking is adequate during the Christmas season.
This is especially true because although Phases 2 and 3 have not been constructed, the
parking to serve them has been. In other words, there is more parking to serve Phase
1 than that required by City ordinance. Finally, even if additional parking were
required, a 36 foot wide street providing a few on-street parking spaces is not a
sufficient basis to require the entire street to be constructed.
4. This application is a new application and under ORS 197.763,
all issues can be raised.
The Assistant City Attorney advised the Planning Conunission that the Do/an
issue could not be raised because the initial evidentiary hearing was the July 2001 Site
Plan Review approval hearing. Since the Applicant did not raise Dolan at that
hearing, the Assistant City Attorney opined, the Applicant cannot raise it now.
First, no party raised Dolan in the July 2001 hearing because the Applicant
proposed the road. Notwithstanding that the City has the burden of proof for
exactions under Do/an, since the Applicant wanted to build the road at that time, there
would have been no reason to raise Dolan.
Secondly, assuming the City's argument is correct, it would mean that every
amended application or new application is always subject to issues that were or could
have been raised in a prior application, However, the applicant always retains the
lOOOOO-OOOOIPA013100,03Sj
NOU 07 2001 15:49 FR PERKINS COlE LLP
503 727 2222 TO 95039825244
P.04/15
lOA
Mr. James P. Mulder
November 7, 2001
Page 3
right to submit a new application or an amended application regardless of how it is
characterized.
The Oregon Supreme CoW1 in Frankland v. City of Lake Oswego, 267 Or 452,
517 P2d 1042 (1973), held in a case involving a complaint about the construction of
an apartment building allegedly in violation of a planned unit development approval
that: "Obviously, in order to guarantee a well-conceived and well-designed planned
writ development, the planning authorities must have the necessary plans and
information from the developer before making a decision. Once approved, the
developer should be bound by the plans unless any changes are approved by the
planning authorities in accordance with the PUD ordinance.'t 267 Or 462 (emphasis
added). Frankland stands for the proposition that an applicant may submit either a
new or amended application. In fact, nothing in the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance
prohibits an amended or new application from being submitted even though an
application has already been approved.
The Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals has followed the rule from Frankland.
In Rochlin v. City of Portland, 34 Or LUBA 379 (1998), when considering an
amendment to a PUD application, LUBA held that an amendment to an approved
application was a separate and distinct application and subject to the standards then in
effect. In Dougherty v, Ti//amook County, 12 Or LUBA 20 (1984), LUBA rejected a
procedural challenge to an amended application because it said that a new permit
application gave petitioners a chance to comment on the application and that new
issues could be raised in that hearing. In Faye Wright Neighborhood Planning
Council v. City of Salem, 1 Or LUBA 246 (1980), LUBA cited the Frankland decision
and held that relevant issues include those presented to the city in a new application.
Finally, in Gage v. City of Portland, 24 Or LUBA 47 (1992), tUBA held that an
amended application is a separate and distinct application from an original PUD
approval.
This application is a separate and distinct application from the July 2001
approval, Under ORS 197.763(1), the applicant may raise all relevant issues,
including Dolan. The city has the burden of proof under Dolan to show that the
condition is roughly proportional to the impacts of the application. Serving other
properties or meeting a city-wide need is not a legitimate basis for imposing the
condition on Craig.
[ooOOQ-oooolP AO 131 00.035J
NOU 07 2001 15:49 FR PERKINS COlE LLP
503 727 2222 TO 95039825244
P.05/15
lOA
Mr, James P. Mulder
November 7, 2001
Page 4
Further, the city treated this application like a new application. The city did
the following:
· It accepted a new application fonn with a new fee and a new signature.
· It gave the application a new file number.
· It conducted a completeness review and determined that the application was
complete,
· It provided a notice of public hearing which contained the raise it or waive
it statement in QRS 197,763(5).
· It issued a new staff report. The staff report listed no approval criteria
which required Craig to construct the road.
Finally, even if Craig does not build the road or dedicate the right of way, the
land remains available for construction of the road. The city or other parties could
purchase the land from Craig in order to build Arney Lane when it is needed.
5. Conclusion.
No approval criterion allows the city to analyze off-site traffic impacts or to
impose a condition requiring Craig to build a road not needed by his development.
The Dolan issue has not been waived because this is a new application and the city
has treated it like a new application, The applicant respectfully requests that the City
Council reverse the Planning Commission and approve the application without the
condition requiring the road to be constructed.
Very truly yours,
MJwl ~.~
Michael C. Robinson
MCR:lcr
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Steve Craig (via facsimile and U.S. mail) (w/o encls.)
Mr, Robert Zochert (via facsimile) (w/o encls.)
Mr. Ray Engel (via facsimile) (w/o encls.)
Mr. N. Robert Shields (via facsimile) (wi encls.)
(ooooo..oooOIl' AO 131 00.035J
"i
:'['
.-
,
!:;
~I
~;
r
~:[,
~ ;~:
j'
'J
1"
L~i
:1
:,'j
I
503 727 2222 TO 95039825244
P.06/15
lOA
BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF OREGON
RICH LAND ENTERPRISES, INC., Petitioner,
Y.
THE CITY OF WOODBURN, a polltlc.llubdlvl,lon of M.rlon County,
Respondent.
[LUBA No. 81.125]
FINAL OPINION AND ORDER
Remanded
July 14, 1982
Appeal from the City of Woodburn,
Robert L Engle, Woodburn, filed the petition for review and argued the cause
on behalf of Petitioner, With him on the brief were Eichsteadt, Bolland.
Engle, Schntidunan and Rohrer.
Jeffrey Blixt. Woodburn, filed the brief and argued the cause on behalf of
Respondent.
Reynolds, Chief Referee; Bagg. Referee; Cox, Referee; participated in this
decision.
ISSUES
[1 J Local Government Procedure
Findings - Traffic. A finding which states that surrounding streets are
incapable of handling the traffic generllted by a proposed use without explaining
what traffic will be generated is inadequate to explain the city'lI use of traffic
problems as a reason for denial of a rezone request.
(2) Local Government Procedure
Findings - Conclusions. A finding in suPPOrt of the city's denial of a rezone
request which states liimply that there exists sufficient undeveloped commercial
land within the city already is II mere conclusion and does not satisfy the require-
ment that the city's decision be supported by findings of fact.
[3] Local Government Procedure
Findinp - Oiscrepancy Between Findings and Comprehensive Plan.
Where one of the city's bases for denying a rezone was potential traffic problems,
but where the comprehensive plan stated that the area had good transportation
60
503 727 2222 TO 95039825244
P.07/15
lOA
Cite as 6 0, LUBA 60
access, it WllS important for the city co expLiin its apparent belief that there would be
serious traffic problems, '
[4) Local Government Procedure
Hearing - Timeliness of Objection. Where the record revealed no attempt
by che petitioner [Q request a hearing or presenc any addicional information, and
also revealed no objection by petitioner to any of the procedures that were held,
petitioner could not use alleged procedural errors as a basis for challenging the city's
decision.
OPINION OF THE BOARD
BAGG, Referee,
NAnJRE OF THE DEOSION
Petitioner challenses the decision of the Woodburn City Council denying a
requesc co rezone a B-acre parcel from mulri-family (RM) to C1)mInercial general
(00) and a l-llcre parcel from commercial office (CO) co commercial general (CG).
Petitioner asks that we teverse the decision and order the city to make the requested
%One changes.
PACI'S
Petitioner owns some 14 acres of land in the City of Woodburn. One acre of the
property is designated llS commercial office (CO), and 13 acres are designated as
multi-family (RM). These designations are at variance with the Woodburn com-
prehensive plan and accompanying land use map. In the plan and map. all oE
peritioner's 14 acres llre designated as commercial. The Woodburn Comprehensive
Plan has been acknowledged as being in compliance with statewide planning goals.
InJuly of 1981. petitioner requested a zone change to apply commercial general
zoning to the entirety of the 14 acres. A staff report was made recommendi08
approval of the application. and the first hearing was held before the Woodburn
Planning Commission in August of 1981. The planning commission recommended
approval and forwarded the recommendation to the city council
The council considered the matter On September 14 and September 28. 1981. At
the first meeting. the council accepted testimony from the audience, bur ultimately
no additional testimony was taken and the matter WllS considered on the record of
the planning wmmission. During the Septembet 14 meeting. the discussion cen-
tered about reasons for a denial of the appHcaiton including an issue as to whether
there was a "need" for the rewnin!!: and the existente of certain traffic problems
with the development or that the development might occasion. hdditionally, there
was some discussion of how much commerdallllnd was already available under the
commercial general zoning designation,
At the September 28 meeting, the council further considered the mauer and
also reviewed a porrioQ of the record that had not been before them at the
September 14 meeting, I Councilman Cascine stated that he had reviewed the
, Thc::<r i. IW[ evidence:: [0 "usse,r rhe missing part of the:: record "'as bec.u~ of anything other thaD mere
inJdvettelltt,
61
NOU 07 2001 15:50 FR PERKINS COlE LLP
503 727 2222 TO 95039825244
P.08/15
lOA
Richlaod Enterpr~ \I, Woodburn
minutes, talked to members of the planning commission and had examined rhe area.
Afrer some discussion, the city attorney was directed to prepare findings of fact for
the next council meeting, to be held October 12,1981. Findings were submitted at
that October 12 meeting, and a motion was made and seconded to approve the
findings and deny the application.
The city's findings are as follows:
1, ^Ithough the srreets which would be direc;t1y affected by ehe proposed zone
change and developmenr therruncler (W, Hayes Sereer, Evergreen Road, the
extension of Evergreen Road, and Oregon State Highway 214) will at sometime in
the future be capable of supporting traffic generated by suc;h use, they are not now
capable wiehom el[teO$ive and wstly developmen.t. widening and slgn..aliurion.
2. There presenc/y exists sufficient undeveloped and unclerdeyeJoped com.
mercial wned lands within. the Cicy which have adequate aSSC$sability [rw].
CONCLUSIONS Of L^W
Petitioner has not met its burden of proof that the parcel of bnd in question is,
as of yet, needed for c;ommercial use nor has petitioner met its burden of showing
thllr lUieqllate access exists for commercial developmem,
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO, 1
Assignment of error number one alleges that the firSt of the city's twO findings
of faCt is "wholly inadequate and irrelevant" and is "unsupponive of the council's
decision. . . ," This assignment of error also alleges that the finding lacks specificity
sufficient to inform the peririonerof the standards against which its application was
tested.
Petitioner's argumenr is that the property is designated for commercial devel-
opment. The land use map, according to petitioner, shows a dty council intent to
make the extension of Evergreen Road a primary arterial thoroughfare. Petitioner
is apparently arguing that the extension of the roadway will be sufficient to meet
any traffic increase generatM by the development. Petitioner also complains that
the time to address traffk problems as well as storm drainage problems is not at the
time of rezone, but at the time of the site plan review.
The city replies that the finding is specific and identifies the standard for
development. Respondent argues the standard for development is "when Wood-
burn's population justifies it. . . ," quoting the comprehensive plan for the City of
Woodburn, Volume I at page 29. Respondent argues that without a growth in
populatio~ development and redevelopment of the StreeCil: is not economically
feasible for the ci '
Respondent argues that site plan is not a sufficient vehicle to addr~ traffic
problems. Respondent advises that the ciry's site plan ordinance concerns itself with
particular on-sire issues, and not the larger issues of tra.ffic circulation. Respondent
would have matters of traffic addressed at the time of rezoniog.2
l The zoning ordinl~ for the Ciry at Woodburn provides chac a sice: plan rrvu.. i$ required of all
SrNallR:5 in the commctcial mnn of rhe ci~, Tht lire plan req\lircmentJ arc as foUaws:
I) A sj~ plan, dnwn co KIIe. showing the proposed layout of ..II S[l'UmIleS 11M othrr
improvements IOOuding. where appropriare, driveways, pedestrian walb, bMsaped
62
Gre all 6 Or LUBA 60
~
[1] We believe the city is correct thar rhe site plan review is limit
esi n issues and is nor a sufficient vehicle for review of traffic roblems owever,
we agree Wit t e petitioner t at 1 ng 0,1 is not a equate to exp am the city's
use of the traffic problerm as a reason for dc:nial of the rezone request.
The finding simply announces dut the affected streets are "not now capable
without extensive and costly development, widening ..nd signalization" of handling
the traffic generated by the proposed use, The finding does not explain exactly wbat
traffic will be generated. Indeed, we do not find a discussion of the trllffic impact of
this proposed development in the record, The finding does not explain what is
meant by "costly development, widening and signalization," The only reference to
traffic improvements that we are able to find in the record concernS the use of a
signaling device. The Woodburn planning staff recommended the installation of a
traffic control signal at the intersection of Evergreen Road and Highway 214,
Record 25. The staff also advised requesting the owner of Fairway plaza for heJp in
the installation of a traffic signal. There is no discussion of what the traffic impaCt
will be and how it will require the "costly development" and "widening" referred to
in the finding. As such. it leaves the petitioner without a clear understanding of
what factS and standards the ciry relied upon in denying his application in part
because of traffic problems.
Assignment of error no. 1 is sustained.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR 2 AND 3
The second assi8nment of error alleges thar theory's second and last finding b
nOt supported by substantial ~vidence. The third assignment of error alleges that
the council erred in its conclusion that the petitioner had not met its burden of
establishing need.
Petitioner argues the second of the ciry's twO findings is not supported by
substantial evidence and is simply wrong. That is, petitioner argues that sina
Neuberger v,Ciryof Portland, 288 Or App 155. ~86 P2d ~51 (1979), "public m:ed is
no longer a criteria to be proven in the face of an acknowledged comprehensive
plan." Petitioner argues, in the alternative, that he has shown a need for more
commercial property in the city.
uca$, fences, .....11:;, off.str'Cec p..rlcing and loading areas, alld railroad ttadcs. The site
plan sh..U illdicat" r}", location of rntrances and exitS and tlu! diteCtion of uafflC flow
inro and out of off-ureet plIrkin8 aocIloadillg .reas, th" Ioc:acion of each PJrlciog Splice
and each loading berth and areas of nuning and maneuvering vehidcs. The sifC plan
SMII indicate how utility service ~ drainage are ro be pro,ided.
b) A Ia~apt plan, dra....n ro seal~ showing the \oQ.ti<;m of existing crees proposed tn be
removed and 10 be re~ined an the sire and rhe location and design of laPtboptd ateaa.
and Otner pe"inem landscape i~
c) Architectural drawings or 5ketcb~5. dra'll" to seal". in suffidenc detail to permit
computation of yard rr=quiremenQ and showin! all elevations 01 rhe proposed Stl'Ua\lteS
and atha improvemcnra J5 mq ~illa}lpear on comp!r!tion of construction,
d) Specificacions .., ro typt. color JDd l!!l[[U~ of exterior surfaces of proposed ItnaaureS,
e) A sign plan, drawn to scaM!. shawing tl\e Iocarion, siz~. design. marergl. cnlor and
~hoOs of iJlumination af all e~riar signs. Woodburn Zoning Ordinance, Ch ~7, Sire
PJ.n~, See 37.020.
6~
lOA
NoV 07 2001 15:51 FR PERKINS COlE LLP
503 727 2222 TO 95039825244
P.10/15
lOA
Richland Enterprises v, Woodburn
[2] We view the dry's second finding as a mere conclusion. Conclusions do not
satisfy the requirement that the decision be supported by findings of faCt. The record
does show a statement as to the number of commercial acres available in the city. but
the record does not show and certainly the finding does not show whether or not the
number of acres quoted is sufficiem or nO[ sufficient for commercial development at
this time or at any time in the futUre, The petitioner is left with no understanding of
what the ciry believes to be "sufficient undeveloped and underdeveloped commer-
cial zoned lands"; and, therefore, he is unable to present facts and arguments to the
city to show whether or not his proposal will meet any need for more commercial
land.
We note that the comprehensive plan for the Ciry of Woodburn includes a
section on implemenration. This section was not referred to in the briefs. but it does
provide a guide to rhe city in rezoning land.
The key stone of plan imple~madon is the long used tool of zoning. Zoning code
should insure that the IOClldon of VllriOUS lana uses and in some cases, the timing of
those land ust$, is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning ordinances
should insure that incompatible uses do not occur. on the other hand they ShOllld
remain as fleltible as possible while $olin accomplishing the purpose of the plan. The
Zoning Map need not be a reflec:tion of the Comprehensive Plan Map, In general, it
11/ ill be more specific, containing many more design.tions than the Comprehensive
Pian Map. In IUidition, there will be many cases where the 3:oning ordinance will be
more restrictive than the map, This is becau5e there are areas which must be
maiPed in a more r~trictive zone until public facilities are developed or public
need is established for a :lone change to a less restrictive zone. However, in no case
should the Zoning Map allow a use whic:h is less restrictive than that called fot in
the Land Use Plan. Comprehensive Plan. Volume I. pg. 40.
This provision seems to allow the city ro leave restrictive zoning in place until
there are adequate public facilities or there is a need established. The cicy did not
djSC\1SS this portion of the comprehensive plan though it may have had it in mind
when drafting finding of fact no. 2, However. witpout an explanation in the findings
as tQ what the city understands to be adequate fublic facilities or public need, the
finding is not sufficient to supp<)rt a conclusion pnder this portion of the plan that
restrictive :wning should be left in place, '
Assignments of error 2 and; are sustained.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO.4
[3] Assignment of error number four alleges that rhe dry"s decision is not
consistent with irs comprehensive' plan and is therefore a misconstruction of
applicable law. Petitioner again argues that this partirular area of the city is the
newest commercial sector available to meet the commercial areas in the I.S Inter-
change area. The comprehensive plan provision for the area ill as follows;
The third wmmetCilllllrCIl in Woodburn is the 1-5 Interchange, While it c:onrains
over 85 acres of lllnd on both skits of the f~way for commercial dl:vclopmeDt, only
a little less than 30 have been developed. [0 dare, leaving the largest amount of
commercial land in the city for future development, This is the newest commercial
sectOr of Woodburn, having c1eveloped only uter the Inter$(llte interchange and
Senior Estare$oand rheir llrtend.ant needs for shopping facilities pm pressure on titis
64
NOV 07 2001 15:51 FR PERKINS COlE LLP
503 727 2222 TO 95039825244
lOA
Cite a$ 6 Or LUB..... 60
area. However. a:; it is relatively unf~[[ered. by surrounding conflicting land WiC5
and has good transportation access, it also has one of the greaeest potentials tor
expansion in che Woodbv.rn area, Petition for Review, Appendix "A." pg, 8.
Because the ciry's findings are inadequate to explain the criteria used and the
f:lets believed to arrive at the decision. we clln not determine whether or not the city
has misconstrued its comprehensive plan, We note that the comprehensive plan for
this area as qUOted recites that the area "has good transportadon access" and '~has
one of the greatest pOtentials for expansion of the Woodburn area."tr is imponant
for the city to explain its apparent belief that there are serious traffic problems with
the proposed development in the light of this comprehensive plan provision which
appears to recognize good tran:;portation in the area.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO, 5
Assignment of error numPer five aUeges that the city failed to follow the
procedure applicable to the matter before it and prejudiced the substantial rights of
the petitioner in the following manner:
a, The COUJKiI failed to give th~ petitioner the opportunity co present oral
information '"at the time the te%One is considered" in accordance with Section
16.040 of the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance,
b, The Council based its clecision:
L On a partial record:
2, On mAtters out!ide the r~ord befor~ it and on erroneous informa-
cion; and
3, On criteria not the proper subject of a %One change denial,
Petitioner claims that the city zoning ordinance provides that the council may
hold a public hearing on a zone change) Petitioner argues that at the September
14 hearing. the ciry WllS told it could overturn the decision of the planningcommis-
sion; it could send the matter back to the planning commission for additional
hearings; it could schedule a public hearing of its own or it could favorably approve
the recommendation. Petitioner argues that the council made a decision at that time
to deny the application without further hearing. Petitioner claims that the city was
obligated to schedule II public hearing at which petitioner could presenr oral and
written te:;timony if it expected to discuss information before it from the lower body
or from sources other than the public hearing held before the planning commission.
Petitioner also claims that because the full record was not before the city council
until thl! St!ptl!mbf!r 21 meeting, it violated its obligation to tl!vit!'O/ tht! !ntire
record,4
; Sec:tiot'l 16,040 Stat".:
The petitioner may pre~nt "'ntt"n or oral information to rhe common council al the time
re"o~ or red;l$sj(jcatiol'l is consid,,=:\,
~ It should be noted thatthe city did not mak" irs morion and yor" 10 deny the application until rheOaobcr
- me<!ting, Also, the full record was befo~ the city council at the Seprcmber 28 rnettms, The
September 28 meeting included diSOU$lon of the merit. of petitioner's application.
65
P.ll/15
503 727 2222 TO 95039825244
P.12/15
lOA
Richlll.l'ld Enterprises v, Woodburn
Petitioner also argues that the council considered matters not in the r<<ord in
chat;
1) The audience was asked co give their interest in the proceeding;
2) There was discussion of a. previous comprehensive plan wl'le .hange;
3) Discussions were held of available acres of commercial geneCi1lll.nd "toc.illy
contradictory to record"; and
4) Contacts were received by one councilman from irate constituents showing
op~ition to [he proposal.
Respondent replies that chere is no indication in the record that the petirioner
even requested a hearing before the city council. The wning ordinance provides that
the petitioner "may" present writren or oral information to the council. and
respondent argues that the petitioner should have taken advantage of that provi-
sion, See footnote no. 1. As no request for such a hearing was made, the aCtion of the
city council should not be considered a remandable error, according to respondent,
(4] We agree with the respondent, The record does not reveal an attempt by the
petitioner to presenr any additional information, and the record is without showing
of objection by petitioner to any of the discussions or procedures that were held. We
believe the time for objection to procedural issues should be at the time of hearing,
absent some special circumstance preventing such an objeaion, Dobaj II. BeafJQf1on,
1 Or LUBA 237 (1980),
Further, we do not believe the petitioner has alleged how it is thac its substan-
tial rights have been prejudiced. We do not believe that a simple show of hands by
persons in attendance at a hearing expressing interest (but apparently not opinion)
in a matter shows prejudice to anyone.'
As to the issue of availability of commercial land. we understand petitioner's
concern over apparent confusion On the part of one of the city council members as to
the amount of available commercial land. There appears to be a discrepancy
between the councilman's understanding of the number of available acres and the
number of acres recited in the staff report.6 Given the poor state of the findings,
however, we do not know whether this information had any bearing on the outcome
of the case, In any event, adequate findings on remand should cure this issue. We
need not, therefore, resolve the issue here. We do nOte, however, it is procedurally
improper for the city to base its decision on evidence not in the record and co which a
party has no opportunity co respond,
, We al50 do noc lIndtrsmnd ho... il is that diS(ll$$jon of a p(t=vious zone cl!artge rcqursr ptejudicl!d ~
petidoneT, Indeed. petitioner has noe explained how d'i$ disc\lll$ion has prr;udiad his we.
· We believe lhe ~rror to ...hicl! petitioner refers is I. 'laterI1l!m by councilman Con.tine " follow.: ..~
is probably 117,5 acre. available under Commeraal and 117,1' acres undeveloped under Commercial
Gent'r.!." Petitioner daims the comprehensive plan ,ho..., a figure of 107 aCtd oE vatam and available
c.omme~jal hmd, and a scalf report show.:
The city presently has 9,16 acres of undeveloped general land and 30,26 oE unde....,IDpec!
commercialg!:nera! land, Rrcotd Z5,
66
lOA
Cite as 6 Or LUBA 60
Lastly. we do not understand how one councilman's receipt of ,ommunications
from "irate constituents," without more, prejudices the petitioner. Petitioner has
not explained how these contactS improperly influenced the council to the detri-
ment of the petitioner,
The decision of the City of Woodburn is remanded for action not inconsistent
with this opinion,
J'..'"I
NOV 07 2001 15:52 FR PERKINS COlE LLP
503 727 2222 TO 95039825244
P. 14/15
--;
SrOEL RIVES LLP
lOA
A T TOR N E Y S
S'tANDARD INSTJRANCE CENTER
900 SW FIFTH AVIlNUE. SUITIl2600
PORTLAND. OREGDN 972l>4-1~
Pl10ru (50S) :124-3380 F"" (503) 220,2480
TDD (503)221,1045
lnlen'l~' <NWW,~l.rom
September 26, 2001
MICHAEL C, ROBINSON
Direct Dial
(503) 294-9194
c.:mail ~robinson@stoe1.com
VIA FACSIMILE
Ms. Naomi Zwerdling, Planner
City of Woodburn Community
Development Department
270 Montgomery Street
Woodburn, OR 97071
Re: City of Woodburn File No. Site Plan Review 01-10; Application by Craig
Realty Group-Woodburn LLC
Dear Naomi:
Thank you for providing me with a copy of the Staff Report. I am writing concerning
three points in the staff report.
First, a Marion County letter, dated September 12, 2001 requests that Arney Lane be
dedicated and improved by Craig Realty Group to the western boundary. This property is not
within Marion County's jurisdiction and notwithstanding Marion County's comment, there is
no basis in the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance cited in the Staff Report (other than an unadopted
policy) for this requirement. While I appreciate Marion County's comment, it is not unfair to
require those who would use the road in the future to build it in the future. Craig Realty
Group has no need to use the road and will receive no benefit from its dedication or
construction.
Second, the Staff Report notes that only a policy requires improvement of roads
adjacent to frontage proposed for development. Unless there is an approval criterion or unless
the city meets its burden of proof under the Dolan case, there can be no lawful requirement for
this improvement. ORS 227.178(3) provides that only those standards and criteria in effect on
the date the application is submitted may be used to judge the application. Standards and
criteria are those contained in the city's acknowledged land use regulations, ORS 197.195(1),
Pol1lll(jl.20660~,l 0099?99.(XltXlCl
SeA'l"I'1.e
PoRTLANO
VANcot1VER, WA
BoISE
SALT Lln CITY
WASHINCTDN. D,C,
NOV 07 2001 15:52 FR PERKINS COlE LLP
503 727 2222 TO 95039825244
P. 15/15
STOEL RIVES LLP
lOA
Ms. Naomi Zwerdling
September 26, 2001
Page 2
The Staff Report suggests that Arney Lane should be constructed to provide access for
property not presently within the city but within the city's Urban Growth Boundary ("UGB").
The Transportation System Plan ("TSP") shows only an arrow ending slightly to the west of
Arney Road indicating a future local street. The TSP does not show Arney Lane as serving as
a collector for all to the property of the west within the city's UGB, Further, until that
property is annexed into the city, there is no need to provide access,
, Finally, the Woodburn Company Stores does not benefit in any way from dedication
and construction of Arney Lane past the easterly driveway. The need and benefit of the road
accrues to the property owners to the west at such time as they are able to develop urban uses.
Those property owners currently have access to the section of Arney Lane proposed to be
improved.
As always, I appreciate your courtesy and assistance in this matter. Would you please
place this letter in the official Planning Department fIle for this application and before the
Planning Commission at the public hearing on September 27?
Very truly yours,
MukQ c:.~
Michael C. Robinson
MCR: ipc
cc: Mr, Steve Craig (via facsimile and U.S. Mail)
Mr, Ray Engel (via facsimile)
Mr. Robert Zockert (via facsimile)
Mr, N. Robert Shields (via facsimile)
po1'l1ndl-2086013,l 0099999-00006
** TOTAL PAGE. 15 **
MEMO
FromffleOfficeifffleOryA~rnry
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: N. ROBERT SHIELDS, CITY ATTORNEY /lit>
SUBJECT: LEGAL PARAMETERS OF SITE PLAN REVIEW MODIFICATION 01-10
APPLICANT: CRAIG REALTY GROUP
DATE: NOVEMBER 13,2001
Introduction.
Legal questions have arisen concerning the nature of this land use application and the Council's
decision making parameters. Some of these issues are discussed in a letter dated November 7,
2001, from Michael C. Robinson, Craig Realty's attorney. I want to briefly clarify your options.
Back~round.
What is being considered by the Council at tonight's hearing is Craig Realty's application to
amend two specific conditions of approval imposed on the original site plan review (Site Plan
Review 00-18). These original conditions of approval require the dedication and improvement
of Old Arney Road. Craig Realty, as the original applicant, proposed and agreed to the
conditions when Site Plan Review 00-18 was being considered. Furthermore, Craig Realty did
not appeal Site Plan Review 00-18 and already been granted the legal right to secure building
permits pursuant to that approval.
Plannin~ Commission Decision.
After considering this application, the Planning Commission modified the original approval
conditions to allow Craig Realty to defer the dedication and improvement of Old Arney Road
until Phase III of the development. The Planning Commission found that: (1) Craig Realty
proposed the road improvement in the original application; (2) Craig Realty did not raise
constitutional or other objections in regard to the improvement; (3) Craig Realty did not appeal
the decision on the original application; and (4) Craig Realty, therefore, waived its legal
opportunity to object to the previously imposed conditions.
Decision before City Council.
Having called up the decision of the Planning Commission for a de novo hearing, the Council
must now decide the application. The Council has the following options:
.
Memo to Mayor and City Council
November 13,2001
Page 2
Option I. - Do not modify the Original Conditions - This would require Craig Realty to dedicate
and construct Old Arney Road as it originally agreed when Site Plan Review 00-18 was decided.
Findings justifying the Council's decision would need to state that since Craig Realty did not
object to the original conditions or appeal Site Plan Review 00-18, its legal rights to make the
same objections now are waived.
Option 2. - Modify the Original Conditions as Decided by the Planning Commission - In
accordance with the Planning Commission decision, this would defer Craig Realty's legal
obligation to dedicate and improve Old Arney Road until Phase III of the development Findings
justifying the Council's decision would need to state that since Craig Realty did not object to the
original conditions or appeal Site Plan Review 00-18, its legal rights to make the same
objections now are waived.
Option 3. - Modify the Original Conditions to Require Craig Realty to Dedicate Land for the Old
Arney Road Improvement and Sign a Non-Remonstrance Agreement - This modification of the
original conditions would have less impact on Craig Realty than Options 1 or 2. However,
absent an agreement by Craig Realty, the findings would still need to state that since Craig
Realty did not object to the original conditions or appeal Site Plan Review 00-18, its legal rights
to make the same objections now are waived.
Option 4. - Eliminate the Requirements of the Original Conditions. - Just as Council has the
authority not to modify the original conditions, it has the ability to completely eliminate them. If
the original conditions were removed, Craig Realty would have no requirement to dedicate and
improve Old Arney Road.
Le~al Parameters
As the November 13,2001 Staff Report candidly points out, ifthe City and the applicant can not
agree on modification of the conditions and the City's legal "waiver argument" is not sustained
on appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), the present record is deficient to justify
the road improvement This potential problem exists if the Council exercises Options 1, 2, or 3
because in each instance the City would be requiring that Craig Realty give up at least some
property.
Continuance of Hearin~ for Staff to Supplement Record
Rather than simply leaving the record deficient, the Council has the option of directing the
Planning and Engineering staff to supplement the record to better document the facts and
circumstances of the waiver issue and why the dedication and/or improvement should be
required. This would require that the Council continue the public hearing until November 26,
2001, but would create a better record to justify its decision on appeal to LUBA.
PERKINS COlE LLP
1211 SOUTHWEST FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 1500 ' PORTL~ND, OREGON 97204-3715
TELEPHONE: 503 727-2000. FACSIMILE: 503 727-2222
Michael C, Robinson
Phone: (503) 727-2264
Email: robim@perkinscoie.com
November 13,2001
Honorable Mayor Richard Jennings and
City Council Members
City of W oodbum City Hall
270 Montgomery Street
W oodbum, OR 97071
Re: Craig Realty Group LLP Woodburn Company Stores: Site Plan
Review Modification No. 01-10
Dear Mayor Jennings and City Council Members:
This fIrm represents Craig Realty Group - Woodburn LLC("Craig") in its
request for modifIcation of the site plan for the Woodburn Company Stores Phases II
and III. This letter responds to the recommendation in the November 13, 2001 Staff
Report that the W oodbum City Council adopt a condition of approval requiring a
waiver of remonstrance from Craig for any future Local Improvement District ("LID")
formed to fund the cost of constructing Arney Lane west from Arney Road. The staff
analysis is flawed in its conclusion that the development of the Woodburn Company
Stores has any relation to the need to construct Arney Lane. A condition that requires
a waiver of remonstrance regarding an LID by Craig would be a taking of property
under Dolan v. City ofTigard, 512 US 374, 114 SCT 2309, 129 LED2d 304(1994).
Dolan v. City of Tigard establishes a two-part test that must be met before an
exaction can be levied on a property owner. The first part of that test requires a nexus
or connection between the exaction and a legitimate public purpose. Staff argues that
providing access to property located west of the Woodburn Company Stores site
constitutes the necessary nexus to demonstrate legitimate public purpose.
Staff next analyzes why the exaction is necessary; that is, they analyze what
development would burden the City of W oodbum ("the City") sufficiently to justify
an exaction and which property would benefit from the extension of Arney Lane.
[37836-0001/PA013120,l12]
ANCHORAGE BELLEVUE BOISE DENVER HONG KONG LOS ANGELES MENLO PARK OLYMPIA PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO SEATfLE SPOKANE TAIPEI WASHINGTON, D.C.
Honorable Mayor Richard Jennings and
City Council Members
November 13, 2001
Page 2
Staffs analysis in this matter focuses entirely on the fact that Arney Lane provides a
second access to the property located west of Woodburn Company Stores when that
property is developed for residential purposes. The City Code requires a second
means of public access for residential properties having more than ten dwellings.
Based on the staffs analysis, the one and only reason for extending Arney Lane
westward is to provide the required second public access to that property. Staff
establishes no connection between the development of the Woodburn Company Stores
and the need to extend Arney Lane. Staff recognizes that there is insufficient
evidence in the record to demonstrate why the exaction should be Craig's
responsibility. However, the evidence in the staff report actually shows that Craig has
no responsibility to dedicate land for the westward extension of Arney Lane because
the need for the extension is wholly unrelated to Craig's development of Woodburn
Company Stores.
The City might argue that the required waiver of remonstrance is appropriate
where a direct impact from a developer's project is involved (see Clark v. City of
Albany, 25 Or LUBA 325 (1995)) or that the waiver does not take property (see
Robert McClure v. City of Springfield, 39 Or LUBA 329 (2001) ("McClure II")).
However, in both of those cases, the improvement required was a direct consequence
of the property owner's development. In Craig's case, there is neither a direct nor
indirect connection between the street extension and Craig's development. Further,
given staff s conclusion that Craig has some, albeit undefmable, responsibility, to
contribute to the exaction for extending Arney Lane, such a condition will certainly
require Craig to dedicate right-of-way for the road extension, thereby taking property
in violation of Dolan.
The conclusion to be reached after reviewing the staff analysis is that any
exaction involving dedication of right-of-way or contribution of rmancial support for
the westward extension of Arney Lane would not mitigate impacts arising from the
development of the Woodburn Company Stores. Since Craig's development does not
cause the traffic impacts necessitating extension of Arney Lane and receives no
benefit from the extension, the City's Council has no authority to burden Craig with
the proposed condition of approval.
[37836-0001IPA013120,112]
11113101
Honorable Mayor Richard Jennings and
City Council Members
November 13,2001
Page 3
Two other points also merit attention. First, page 3 of the Staff Report asserts
that the Woodburn Transportation System Plan ("TSP") contains a policy requiring
the extension of Arney Lane. The TSP is part of the City's Comprehensive Plan
("Plan") and has not been incorporated into the approval criteria for a Site Plan
Review application. See Woodburn Zoning Ordinance ("WZO") section 11.070(a)-
(h), containing approval criteria. This application is a "limited land use" application.
ORS 197.015 (12). Only criteria incorporated into the WZO may be used as approval
criteria. ORS 197.195(1). Further, the Staff Report for the Planning Commission
referred to an unadopted policy, not the TSP, as justification for the exaction.
Even if the TSP were applicable, the mere existence of the policy does not
justify an exaction where there is no roughly proportional impact of the application
that justifies the condition. The staff report contains no evidence showing that this
application creates the need for Arney Lane to be extended. The only justification is
the speculative future development of other properties, some of which are presently
outside of the City's Urban Growth Boundary ("UGB").
Further, the properties to the west have access. They are served by Sprague
Lane on the south and a private easement (extending west from Arney Lane) on the
north. The Staff Report at page 4 cites WZO section 10.080(c) as justifying a second
access. However, this application is not subject to this section because it applies only
to residential properties. In any event, the cited ordinance does not require two (2)
public roads, just two (2) means of access, which already exist. Finally, Craig has not
proposed to develop the right-of-way for Arney Lane, so future street development is
not precluded.
Second, the staff report does not explain why Craig should waive his statutory
right to remonstrate against an LID formation. While McClure II held that a waiver is
not subject to the Dolan analysis, McClure also found a basis for right-of-way
exactions. Such a basis is entirely lacking in this case. Without a basis, the condition
is unreasonable. See ORS 197.522 allowing imposition of reasonable conditions of
approval. A waiver of remonstrance is unreasonable where there is no evidence
supporting the need for an LID and the application does not contribute to that need.
Clark, Id. Here, the City's justification is based on properties outside of the UGB
[37836-000I/PAOI3120.112]
11113/01
Honorable Mayor Richard Jennings and
City Council Members
November 13, 2001
Page 4
while acknowledging that the application does not create the need for the Arney Lane
extension (Staff Report at pages 3 and 4).
MCR:bmw/kla
Very truly yours, ,..
IJluiuQ c. RJL/1-
Michael C. Robinson
cc: Mr. Steven L. Craig (via facsimile and U.S. mail)
[37836-000LPAOI3120.112]
11/13/01
lOB
~E~ ~nistrator for Council ActiO/
From: Randy Scott, Senior Engineering Technician, Through the Public Works Director~
Subject: Petition To Vacate Public Easements In Conjunction With The Wal-Mart Expansion
Date: October 31, 2001
RECOMMENDATION: After public hearing, by motion; instruct staff to prepare an ordinance
vacating the two utility easements and a portion of a sanitary sewer easement, subject to the
conditions outlined below:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1, The existing sanitary sewer force main within the area to be vacated shall be relocated in
accordance with city requirements and city approved plans, all relocation costs to be borne
by the petitioner. Proper easement to accommodate the relocated sewer main shall be
provided to the city.
2, The existing city water main within the area to be vacated shall be relocated in accordance
with city requirements and city approved plans, all relocation costs to be borne by the
petitioner. Proper easement to accommodate the relocated water main shall be provided to
the city.
3. The petitioner shall relocate all franchised utilities that exist in the vacated easement area
and provide the proper easements for the relocation,
4. Petitioner shall pay the street/easement vacation processing fee of$ 560.00 as adopted in
Ordinance No. 2300.
BACKGROUND:
1, Findings of Fact:
A, Location: The proposed easements to be vacated are shown on the location map
as provided on Exhibits "A", "B" and "C" , A legal description of the easements to
be vacated is provided on Exhibit "D",
B. Jurisdiction: The City has jurisdiction over the easements proposed to be
vacated,
C. Current land use and zoning: The surrounding land use and zoning will not
change by vacating the proposed easements,
D. Current use of easements proposed for vacation: the existing facilities utilizing
the proposed easements to be vacated will be relocated and provided proper
lOB
City Administrator for Council Action
Page 2
October 31, 2001
easements by the petitioner, All costs associated with the relocation shall be borne
by the petitioner.
2. Applicable Statues
A In accordance with ORS 271.080 a petition has been prepared by a person
interested in vacating a public easement. As required by the ORS the petition
contained the consent of all the adjacent property owners and two thirds of the
affected area,
B. A petition on behalf ofWal Mart Real Estate Business Trust has been filed with
the City Recorder requesting that a portion of a sanitary sewer easement and two
utility easements be vacated, Staff has reviewed the petition and finds it is
complete and substantially conforms with the requirements ofORS 270,080,
C. In accordance with ORS 271.100, Action by the Council, Resolution No. 1657
was passed on October 8, 2001, which set a date, time and place for the public
hearing on the petition to vacate a portion of Oswald Street.
D. Notice of public hearing has been published in the local paper in accordance with
ORS 271.110, Notice ofthe hearing was also posted on-site at each end of the
proposed area to be vacated,
E. ORS 271.120 Hearing Determination, provides for the governing body to hear the
petition and objections filed, determine whether the consent of the owners of
the requisite area have been obtained, whether notice has been duly given
and whether the public interest will be prejudiced by the vacation of such
street. The criteria as stipulated above has been meet and as of the date of this
memo no written objections have been submitted to the city.
F, The vacation meets all other state and local guidelines concerning easement
vacation,
CONCLUSION:
1. The consent of majority of the owners of the requisite area has been obtained.
2, Notice of the public hearing has been duly given in accordance with ORS 271.110,
3, As of this date, no objections have been filled by property owners within the affected area.
J.N. 1545
7-10-01
EXHffiIT "A"
~ ~~
SCALE: " - 120' '
TAX lOT 200
052W\3
POINT Of'
BEGINNING
lOB
n S~~r
.~ \ ~
.f ;:;1 NO''07'~O.[ ;s'qy
f :: ~ 27.96 1s--1J-
:: ~
: ~ ~
:: ~
:: ~
: :; 1
:::i
:::i
in ::: i
:d ; :;j
g: : ::1
: ::Iio
(II~
:.; 01
:::1
:::1
~: ~I SANITARY SEWER
in :r:~ EASEMENT
::: ::3 TO BE VACATED
g ::
~: ~ . '
::3 '
:: J
::: J
t '::J
~ ~H,'
13 n:l~
Z :::/b
:::/1-
: ~ ~I
~'::/
:::1,
;::1
:::/
::~
: :~
~: ~
::1
nt
::H
: n J SOl '07'SO"W
: ; : 27.1l6'
P AACEl.. 1
PAA111\ON PlAT
NO. 92-17
Sr.
LAWSON STREET- ~-
.. . ii~
LOCATED IN lliE. S. W. 1/4
OF SECnON 12,
. T. 5 S., R. 2 W., W.M.
CITY OF WOODBURN,
MARION COUNTY, OREGON
CE&tJW~
:lWBANGYROAD~~
I..AI<:B OSWBOO. C
503.968.6655 or
EXHIBIT "B"
Nl1'07'2rE
60.112
r;:-::,~,
,'.......]
,::::::::: 60' UTlUTY
I~:~:?r EASEMENT
,::::0H TO BE VACATED ,
(~( U (AS PER R. 907, P. 003)
nU!!!!!~<n
~':-:.:-:.3OJ
(::::::::) ,.!
l'l :::::::: J ::t
~E::::::::l
E:::::: ::)
E:.:.;.;. )
{W/,
E:::::::;'
::. :.:.:, 1&1
(;.,:.:.:. b
):,.........,-
b ::::::::: c..,
-I.........'i
~ :.:.:.:.:
I.:.:.... 'J
%I;~j)nh
1::::::::='
1:=::;=;=;1
,.........,
.........
,:.:.;.:.:,
.:.:.:.:.
. 0 .'
-S01'07'60"W
TAX LOT 200
052W13
TRUE
POINT OF'
BEGINNING
27.l16
LAWSON STREET
-~-
~I~
I-If!:
. ~ en
LOCATED WIN .11iE S.W. 1/4-
. :.'OFSECnON 12,'
T. 5 S., R.2 W., W.M.
CIlY OF WOODBURN
MARrON COUNTY. OREGON
.m 1645
lOB
~ .~C-
I .. I
100 50 0 100
PARCEl. 1
PARTITION PLAT
NO. 92-17
-
~
REGISTERED
PROFESSIONAL.
~O SURVEYOR
r----------
I r--------
I r ...J N88~2'1 o"w
I I 26.06'
I I
I I
I I
r I
I I TAX LOT 200
I I 052W13
I I
I I NEW
I I
:r~
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
, ,
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
100
,
50
EXHIBIT "C"
~r
.
I
I
I I
I' EXlSnNG
, n' UllUlY
, , EASEMENT
I I (PER PARll1l0N
I I PLAT NO, 92-17)
I I
I I
I I
:: NOI'O?,50'E
I Jdr 25.00
I ,
_ .1 ___,
,.~--., I
.... LJ
..t 588"52'10'E
I, 30.46'
: Sl1 '07'25.W
I 25.39'
J
~I
.~Jbt
~'l'f
~J~
%:J
J
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
lOB
,
o
r
100
unuTY
EASEMENT
TO BE VACATED
PARCEl.. 1
PARnnOO PLAT
NO. 92-17
LAWSON SlREET --r-
-~~I -
REGISTERED ~18
PROF-"ESSIONAL. 1-1 ~
LAND SUR OR (f) In
~
I
"'N, 1645
EXHIBIT "D"
The portion of the sanitary sewer easement proposed to be vacated is legally
described as follows:
A portion of a Sanitary Sewer Easement as recorded in Deed Document Reel 876, Page
168, Marion County Deed Records, situated in the Southwest quarter of Section 12,
Township 5 South, Range 2 West, Willamette Meridian, City of Woodburn, County of
Marion, State of Oregon, being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a two inch iron pipe with a two inch aluminum cap inscribed "Barker PLS
636" for the Southeast corner of Parcel 1 as recorded in Partition Plat No, 92-17, Marion
County Deed Records, Salem, Oregon, Thence along the south boundary line of said
Parcell, North 88052' 10" West a distance of991.15 feet to a point, said point is 93,20
feet from the west line of said Parcel 1; Thence North 010 07' 50" East a distance of
27,96 feet; Thence South 880 52' 10" East a distance of991.15 feet; Thence South 010
07' 50" West a distance of 27,96 feet to the point of beginning,
lOB
Containing an area of 27,7 13 square feet, more or less
Basis of Bearing is Partition Plat No, 92-17
A diagram of said tract is attached as Exhibit "A"
The sixty-foot wide utility easement proposed to be vacated is legally described as
follows:
A sixty (60.00') feet wide Utility easement as recorded in Deed Document Reel 907,
Page 003, Marion County Deed Records, situated in the Southwest quarter of Section 12,
Township 5 South, Range 2 West, Willamette Meridian, City of Woodburn, County of
Marion, State of Oregon, being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at a two inch iron pipe with a two inch aluminum cap inscribed "Barker
PLS 636" for the Southeast corner of Parcell as recorded in Partition Plat No, 92-17,
Marion County Deed Records, Salem, Oregon, Thence along the east boundary line of
said Parcell, North 01001' 50" East a distance of27,96 feet to the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNNING: Thence North 880 52' 10" West a distance of 452.46 feet; Thence North
11001' 25" East a distance of 60.92 feet; Thence South 880 52' 10" East a distance of
441,89 feet to a point in the east line of said Parcel I; Thence along said line, South 0 I 0
07' 50" West a distance of60,00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING,
Containing an area of 26,829 square feet, more or less,
Basis of Bearing is Partition Plat No. 92-17
A diagram of said tract is attached as Exhibit "B"
The twenty five-foot wide utility easement proposed to be vacated is legally
described as follows:
A twenty five (25,00') feet wide Utility easement as recorded in Partition Plat No, 92-17,
Marion County Deed Records, situated in the Southwest quarter of Section 12, Township
5 South, Range 2 West, Willamette Meridian, City of Woodburn, County of Marion,
State of Oregon, being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at a two inch iron pipe with a two inch aluminum cap inscribed "Barker
PLS 636" for the Southeast corner of Parcell as recorded in Partition Plat No. 92-17,
Marion County Deed Records, Salem, Oregon, Thence North 850 19' 59" West a
distance of 453,32 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence North 880 52'
10" West a distance of26,06 feet; Thence North 01001' 50" East a distance of25,OO feet;
Thence South 880 52' 10" East a distance 000.46 feet; Thence South 11007' 25" West a
distance of25,39 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING,
Containing an area of 706 square feet, more or less,
Basis of Bearing is Partition Plat No. 92-17
A diagram of said tract is attached as Exhibit "c"
IIA
CITY OF WOODBURN
Community Development
MEMORANDUM
270 Montgomery Street
Woodburn, Oregon 97071
(503) 982-5246
Date: November 7,2001
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council thru City Administrator
From: Dan Nelson, Building Official
Subject: Intergovernmental Agreement Between Marion County and The City of
Woodburn to Have the Woodburn Building Division Issue Electrical and
Plumbing Permits
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the attached Intergovernmental Agreement between Marion County and The
City of Woodburn,
PROPOSAL:
Staff proposes approval of this agreement which would allow electrical and plumbing
contractors to apply and receive their Marion County Permits at the Woodburn Building
Division Counter.
ANALYSIS:
This would allow The Building Division to have a full service counter, The Building
Official now issues structural and mechanical permits and sends the contractors to
Salem to pull their electrical and plumbing permits. Upon the approval of this
agreement we would set up a frame relay connection with Marion County to allow us to
access all their building files. We would then accept electrical and plumbing permit
applications, enter the information on the Marion County Data Base, and issue the
permit without sending them to Salem, The Woodburn Building Department would
receive ten percent of the electrical and plumbing permit fees from Marion County to do
this.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Intergovernmental Agreement
ttA
COUNCIL BILL NO. 2356
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION ENTERING INTO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
WITH MARION COUNTY FOR PLUMBING AND ELECTRICAL PROGRAM
SUPPORT.
WHEREAS, the City of Woodburn has established a local building inspection program
consistent with the requirements of state law; and
WHEREAS, in conjunction with the City's program, Marion County provides plumbing
and electrical inspection services to the City; and
WHEREAS, in order to memorialize the City's relationship with Marion County for the
processing of plumbing and electrical permits, it is necessary to enter into an intergovernmental
agreement; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the City of Woodburn enter into an intergovernmental agreement, a copy
of which is affixed hereto as Attachment "A" and by this reference incorporated herein, with
Marion County for plumbing and electrical program support.
Section 2. That the Mayor of the City of Woodburn is authorized to sign said agreement
on behalf of the City.
~ rv-r~ I \ - 1$ - t- 0 0 ,
Approved as to form: '
City Attorney Date
Approved:
Richard Jennings, Mayor
Passed by the Council
Submitted to the Mayor
Approved by the Mayor
Filed in the Office of the Recorder
ATTEST:
Mary Tennant City Recorder
City of Woodburn, Oregon
Page I - COUNCIL BILL NO.
RESOLUTION NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
ATTACHMENT-d...- llA
Page --1-. of +
mTERGOVERNMENTALAGREEMENT
Between
Marion County
a political subdivision of the State of Oregon
and
City of Woodburn
a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon
for
Plumbing and Electrical Program Support
This agreement is made pursuant to ORS 190.003 to 190,110, between Marion County and the
City of Woodburn, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon.
In consideration ofthe mutual obligations and benefits herein set forth, the parties agree as
follows:
1. City of Woodburn Obligations
1,1 Provide computer access to the Marion County Building Inspection Database,
1,2 Receive plumbing and electrical permit applications with payment on behalf of the
County, and enter required data into the County database and issue those permits
by computer as required,
1.3 Verify that the applicant is properly licensed to perform the work
1.4 Forward the original signed copy of the permit to Marion County.
1.5 Notify applicant of the Automated Inspection Services phone number and the
correct inspection codes.
1,6 Submit payment to Marion County within fifteen (15) days after receiving monthly
invoices.
Marion County Building Inspection
555 Court St NE
P.O. Box 14500
Salem, OR 97309-5036
Page 1 of 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
ttA
Phone (503) 588-5147
Fax (503) 588-7948
A
'r
ATTACHMENT
Page -Z:-. of
1.5 Retain 10% of the permit fee revenue to offset the above clerical support
functions,
2, Marion County Obligations
2,1 Provide permit application forms, automated inspection service guides.
2.2 Create an issued permit file,
2,3 Perform all required inspections and record them in the permit file.
2.4 Sign off the City of Woodburn Permit card when posted and available at the job
site,
2.5 Submit billings and invoices to the City of Woodburn for all issued permits on a
monthly basis,
2,6 Provide computer training to electronically process permit applications,
2.7 Remit Oregon State Surcharge to the State of Oregon for issued permits.
2.8 Submit all invoices, billings and reports to:
John Brown, City Manager
City of Woodburn
270 Montgomery Street
Woodburn, OR 97071
Phone (503)982-5250
3, General Obligations
3. 1 Each party shall be solely liable for third party claims arising from the actions of
that party's officer, employees and agents.
3,2 The City of Woodburn shall agree to defend, indemnity and hold hannless Marion
County, its officers, agents, and employees from damages arising out of the
tortuous acts of the City of Woodburn, its officers, agents, and employees acting
within the scope of their employment and duties in performance of this agreement
subject to the limitations and conditions of the Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS
Page 2 of 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
ATTACHMENT~
Page .:b__ of ~
30,260 through 30.300, and the Oregon Constitution, Article XI, Section 7.
ItA
Likewise, Marion County shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the
City of Woodburn, its officers, agents, and employees acting within the scope of
their employment and duties in performance of this agreement subject to the
limitations and conditions of the Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS 30.260 through
30.300, and The Oregon Constitution, Article XI, Section 7,
3,3 When the parties share supervision and control over a project, each party shall be
liable for third party claims arising from the actions of its officers, employees, and
agents,
Nothing in this agreement shall be deemed to limit the right of either party to make a claim against
the other for damages and injuries incurred by one party as a result of the actions of the other
party's officers, agents, and employees,
This agreement represents the entire integrated understanding of the parties. This agreement may
be amended only in writing executed with the same formalities as the agreement itself
This agreement may be terminated or renegotiated with thirty (30) days written notice by either
party directed to:
John Brown, City Manager
City of Woodburn
270 Montgomery Street
Woodburn, OR 97071
Phone (503)982-5250
Fax (503)982-5244
Marion County Building Inspection
555 Court St NE
P.O, Box 14500
Salem, OR 97309-5036
Phone (503) 588-5147
Fax (503) 588-7948
This agreement shall expire on June 31, 2005 unless agreed to by both parties to extend,
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be signed in their
respective names by their duly authorized representatives as of the dates set forth below.
Recommended by
Marion County Building Inspection
City of Woodburn
Page 3 of 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Craig 0, Luedeman, Director
Date
Approved as to form:
Marion County Legal Counsel
Date
Approved as to form:
Contracts Officer
Date
Marion County Board of Commissioners
Chair
Commissioner
Commissioner
Page 4 of 4
ATTACHMENT A
Page ~. of '-I-
IIA
Mayor
Date
City Legal Counsel
Date
City Manager
Date
lIB
CITY OF WOODBURN
Community Development
MEMORANDUM
270 Montgomery Street
Woodburn, Oregon 97071
(503) 982-5246
From:
November 13, 2001
~/D~
Honorable Mayor and City Council thru City Administrator ~:/
Jim Mulder, Director of Community Development ~
Ordinance Affirming Planning Commission's D~ial of Subdivision
01-01 and Variance 01-06.
Date:
To:
Subject:
Recommendation: Approve the attached ordinance affirming the Planning Commission's
denial of Subdivision 01-01 and Variance 01-06.
Backoround: The City Council, at its October 22,2001 meeting, conducted a public
hearing to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a five lot
subdivision and associated variances on property located on the south side of
Hardcastle Avenue east of Highway 99E. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Council
moved to affirm the Planning Commission's denial of said applications and directed staff
to prepare an ordinance to substantiate its decision, That ordinance is attached.
lIB
COUNCIL BILL NO. 2357
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AFFIRMING THE WOODBURN PLANNING COMMISSION'S
DENIAL OF SUBDIVISION 01-01 AND VARIANCE 01-06 TO SUBDIVIDE TWO
RESIDENTIAL PARCELS, THE COMBINED SIZE OF WHICH IS 1.91 ACRES, INTO
FIVE LOTS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF EAST HARDCASTLE A VENUE
BETWEEN HWY 99E AND THE EASTERLY CITY LIMIT; AND DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY.
WHEREAS, the applicant, Wilhelm Engineering, Inc., requested approval of land use
applications for a subdivision and variance to subdivide a residential site 1.91 acres in size on the
south side of East Hardcastle Avenue between Hwy 99E and the easterly city limit; and
WHEREAS, The Woodburn Planning Commission held a public hearing on the matter at
their regularly scheduled meeting of August 23,2001 and adopted a final order on September 13,
2001 denying said applications; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's decision was appealed to the Woodburn City
Council by Kevin E. Mayne, attorney representing the property owner; and
WHEREAS, the Woodburn City Council has reviewed the record pertaining to said
appeal and heard all public testimony presented at the appeal hearing; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the decision of the Woodburn Planning Commission denying
Subdivision Case No. 01-01 and Variance Case No. 01-06 is affirmed based upon Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law, affixed hereto as Attachment "A".
Section 2. That this ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation of the
public peace, health, and safety, an emergency is declared to exist and this ordinance shall take
effect immediately u~~age by the Council and approval by the Mayor.
Approved as to form~ , I. rrr- ~ 11- F - ~ 12 ,) /
City Attorney Date
Approved:
Richard Jennings, Mayor
Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
lIB
EXHIBIT "A"
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. APPLICATION INFORMATION
Applicant: George Wilhelm
Wilhelm Engineering, Inc.
P.O, Box 561
1771 Mt. Jefferson Ave
Woodburn, OR 97071
Property Owner: Lazar Kalugin
Quality Plus Interiors, Inc.
11220 Portland Road NE
Salem, OR 97305
II. NATURE OF THE APPLICATION:
The applicant proposes to subdivide two residential properties into five lots for
future residential use. The proposed subdivision includes three variance
requests: 1) to allow five lots to access a private drive when four is the maximum
permitted, 2) to allow the private drive serving the subdivision to extend beyond
the 150-foot depth maximum to 250 feet, and 3) to allow four of the lots to be
created without public right-of-way frontage, rather they would be accessed by a
private drive.
III. RELEVANT FACTS:
The subject properties are located on the south side of E. Hardcastle Ave
between Hwy 99E and the easterly city limit. The properties are addressed at
1810 and 1820 E. Hardcastle Ave, further identified on Marion County Assessor
Maps as Township 5 South, Range 1 West, Section 80C, Tax Lots 6000 (1820
E. Hardcastle) and 6101 (1810 E. Hardcastle).
The combined size of both subject properties is 1.91 acres (83,200 square feet).
TL 6000 is 1.05 acres and TL 6101 is 0,86 acres. The proposed lots range in size
from 6,020 square feet to 29,500 square feet and will have widths of no less than
70 feet and lengths of no less than 86 feet. Four of the five lots are proposed to
be accessed by a 24-foot wide private drive within a 39-foot wide private right-of-
way. Most of this private right-of-way is proposed to be within a separate tract of
land, but portions would need to extend onto an existing and proposed single-
family lots through easements,
SUB 01-01, VAR 01-06
ORDINANCE
Page 1
lIB
The site is virtually flat with no more than one (1) foot of change in elevation,
The property consists of trees and vegetation, some of which are to be removed
as part of this project. TL 6101 is currently vacant, and TL 6000 has a shed
which is to be removed and a new single-family home which is to remain, This
existing home is proposed to be located within Lot 1,
The subject site is zoned Single-Family Residential (RS) and has a
Comprehensive Plan Map designation of Low Density Residential. Adjacently
located to the west is a two-family home (duplex) neighborhood zoned Multi-
Family Residential (RM) District. The city limit is along the south of the property,
and the adjacent property to the south consists of an orchard which is under
Marion County zoning of Single-Family (RS) Residential. This is the only
adjacent property that is not within the Woodburn city limit. The adjacent
property to the east is zoned RS and has a single-family home, To the north on
the opposite side of Hardcastle is also a two-family home (duplex) neighborhood
zoned RM.
IV. RELEVANT APPROVAL CRITERIA:
SUB 01-01
A. WOODBURN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
B. WOODBURN ZONING ORDINANCE
Chapter 8 General Standards
Chapter 9 Residential Standards
Chapter 10 Off-Street Parking, Loading and Driveway Requirements
Chapter 22 RS - Single Family Residential District
Chapter 39 Mandatory Parkland Dedication or Cash-In-Lieu-of
C, WOODBURN SUBDIVISION STANDARDS
D. WOODBURN SIGN ORDINANCE
E. WOODBURN TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS PLAN
F. WOODBURN ACCESS MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
VAR 01-06
A. WOODBURN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
SUB 01-01, VAR 01-06
ORDINANCE
Page 2
lIB
B. WOODBURN ZONING ORDINANCE
Chapter 8 General Standards
Chapter 10 Off-Street Parking, Loading and Driveway Requirements
Chapter 13 Variance Procedures
C, WOODBURN SUBDIVISION STANDARDS
D. WOODBURN ACCESS MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
V. FINDINGS
SUB 01-01
A. Woodburn Comprehensive Plan
FINDING: Applicable goals and policies have been satisfied through the
implementation of the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance and other applicable
ordinances in affect at the time of approval. The proposed use is residential in
nature, A residential use is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan Map
designation of Low Density Residential on the subject properties,
B. Woodburn Zoning Ordinance
1. Chapter 8. General Standards.
Section 8.030. Dwellings and All Other Buildings to be Accessible to
Public Streets. Every dwelling shall be situated on a lot having direct
access by abutting upon a public street or a pre-existing private driveway
of a width of not less than 20 feet and a private drive shall not serve more
than four dwelling units except when approved under Planned
Development.. , .
FINDING: Four ot the five proposed lots are to be created without public right-ot-
way frontage. A variance is being requested as part of this proposal from the
standard requiring all lots to abut public right-of-way (referred to as "Variance No.
3" in this report).
In addition, five lots are proposed to access the private drive that would serve
this subdivision. Said access is to be located in a separate tract of land and a
portion of an existing access easement along the east side a single-family lot,
which is located adjacent to the northwest of the subject site, This lot was
partitioned from TL 6101 as Parcel 1 of Partition Plat 1995-42, herein referred to
as "Parcel 1" (see Exhibit "C"). The existing access easement was established
SUB 01-01, VAR 01-06
ORDINANCE
Page 3
lIB
as part of this partition to provide access to TL 6101, As part of this subdivision
request, this existing easement is proposed to be incorporated into the proposed
private drive, continuing to provide access to Parcel 1 in addition to the proposed
four interior lots. The five lots accessing the private drive exceed the maximum
allowance of four lots. As a result, an additional variance is being requested as
part of this subdivision to allow five lots to access the private drive (referred to as
"Variance No.1" in this report).
Section 8.040. Special Setback Distances
(12) East Hardcastle Avenue, U,S. Hwy 99E to East City Limits,.....40 feet
FINDING: The subject site abuts a section of E. Hardcastle Ave with a 60-foot
wide right-of-way, This puts the center line of Hardcastle 30 feet from the front
property line of the site, With a required 40-foot special setback distance from
the roadway center line, 10 feet of special setback is required from the site's front
property line. By adding this to the minimum 20-foot front yard setback required
in the RS District, the minimum setback distance required from the front property
line is 30 feet. There is a single-family home on the front portion of the site which
is approximately 40 feet from the front property line, The minimum special
setback distance is being met in this proposal.
Section 8.190. Vision Clearance. A triangular area at the street or highway
corner of a corner lot, or the corner at any alley street intersection of a lot, the
space being defined by a diagonal line across the corner between the points
of the streets rights-of-way lines or street-alley rights-of-way lines measured
from the corner, The vision clearance area for corner lots at street
intersections shall have a minimum of 30 foot legs along each street and for
alley-street intersections in said districts the vision clearance area shall have
legs of a minimum of ten feet along both alleys and streets. The vision
clearance area shall not contain any plantings, walls, structures, or temporary
or permanent obstructions to vision exceeding 30 inches in height above the
curb level, or street shoulder where there is no curb, except a supporting pillar
or post not greater than 12 inches in diameter or 12 inches on the diagonal of
a rectangular pillar or post; and further, excepting those posts or supporting
members of street signs, street lights, and traffic control signs installed as
directed by the Building Inspector, or any other sign erected for public safety,
Vision clearance shall not be required at a height of seven feet or more above
the curb level, or seven feet, six inches above the shoulder of a street that
does not have a curb,
SUB 01-01, VAR 01-06
ORDINANCE
Page 4
lIB
FINDING: Vision clearance triangles have been applied to the point where the
proposed private drive connects with E. Hardcastle Avenue, There are none of
the above-described obstructions within these triangle areas, nor are any
proposed as part of this project.
2. Chapter 9. Residential Standards.
FINDING: At such time that building permit applications are made on each lot,
residential setback requirements would be reviewed for compliance. There is
currently one single-family home and an accessory structure on the subject site,
The accessory structure is to be removed, and the single-family home is to be
located on proposed Lot 1 of this subdivision. As discussed in the portion of this
report addressing WZO Chapter 22 "Single Family Residential (RS) District", the
proposed layout of Lot 1 in relation to the location of the existing home complies
with residential setback and maximum lot coverage standards.
3. Chapter 10. Off Street Parking, Loading and Driveway Standards.
Section 10.050. Off-Street Automobile Parking Requirements.
(a) Single-family dwellings:
(1) One and one-half spaces per dwelling.
FINDING: The applicant has indicated that the proposed lots will be constructed
with single-family homes. The existing home on proposed Lot 1 has been
provided with the necessary oft-street parking spaces, At the time of building
permit submittal for said residential dwellings, each lot would need to provide the
required one and one-half oft-street parking spaces,
Section 10.080. Driveway Standards.
I) Standards for driveways serving more than one dwelling unit:
(3) Minimum width of the driveway pavement shall be 24 feet.
(4) A turnaround shall be provided on all private, dead-end streets;
minimum of 40 foot radius for cul-de-sac turnarounds, minimum of
two forty foot long legs by 20 feet for aCT', "Y" or "branch"
turnaround.
FINDING: The private drive providing access to the proposed four interior lots is
to be 24 feet in width. The dead-end of the drive is proposed as a "T" turnaround
with 30-foot long legs 25 feet in width, The legs are 10 feet short of the minimum
SUB 01-01, VAR 01-06
ORDINANCE
Page 5
lIB
length.
(5) Maximum depth of a private street shall be 150 feet, measured
from the right-of-way line to the point where the street no longer
serves more than one unit.
(6) Private streets are designated as fire lanes so no blockage could
be allowed, "No Parking" signs shall be erected and maintained by
the property owner.
(7) Driveways serving private single family detached homes shall:
(a) Serve no more than four units;
(b) Not be allowed unless no practical development of a public
street is possible and the land cannot be otherwise utilized for
urban-type units.
FINDING: With regard to the maximum depth for private drives of 150 feet and
the requirement that private driveways serve no more than four single-family
homes, the applicant is requesting variances from these standards, which are
further addressed in this report under WZO Chapter 13 "Variance Procedures",
In reference to subsection 8(b), a public street extension onto the subject
property would require a right-of-way width of at least 50 feet and a cul-de-sac
radius of no less than 55 feet. As a result, a public street would not be practical
to serve allowable development on this site due to the long and narrow shape of
the subject properties and the site's limited frontage width along existing right-of-
way.
4. Chapter 22. Single Family Residential District.
Section 22.010. Use. Within the RS Single Family Residential District
no building, structure, or premises shall be used, arranged or designed to
be used except for one or more of the following uses:
(a) Single Family Dwelling
FINDING: The applicant has indicated that the proposed lots will be constructed
with single-family homes, The subject site is zoned Single-Family Residential
(RS) District, and single-family homes are permitted outright.
Section 22.040. Height. In an RS District, no building or structure shall
exceed 35 feet or two and one-half stories in height.,.
FINDING: The existing home which would be encompassed by Lot 1 is 17 feet
in height at its tallest point. At this time, there are no other residential structures
SUB 01-01, VAR 01-06
ORDINANCE
Page 6
lIB
on the site, Future structures would be reviewed for compliance with height limits
at the time of building permit submittal.
Section 22.050. Rear Yard. There shall be a rear yard on every lot in an
RS District which shall have a minimum depth of 24 feet for a one-story
building, 30 feet for a two-story building and 36 feet for a two and one-half
story building. In the case of a corner lot, the minimum depth shall be 14
feet for a one-story building, 20 feet for a two-story building and 26 feet
for a two and one-half story building.
FINDING: None of the proposed lots would be corner lots. The existing home
on the site is one story. Proposed Lot 1, which would encompass the existing
home, provides for a rear yard setback of 25 feet. This setback distance meets
the minimum required for this lot. Any future homes on the site would be
reviewed for setback compliance at the time of building permit submittal. All
proposed lots consist of sizes and configurations that allow for required setbacks
to be met while providing for reasonable building areas.
Section 22.060. Side Yards. There shall be a side yard on each side of
the main building on every lot in an RS District in width not less than five
feet for a one-story building, nor less than six feet for a two or two and
one-half story building.,.,
FINDING: The existing home would have side yard setbacks of approximately
10 and 12 feet to the proposed property lines of Lot 1, meeting the minimum
requirement. All future structures within the subdivision would be reviewed for
setback compliance at the time of building permit submittal.
Section 22.070. Front Yard. Every building erected, constructed, or
altered in an RS District shall conform to the front yard setback set forth in
Section 9,040.
FINDING: Chapter 9 requires a front yard setback distance no less than 20 feet,
and as mentioned, there is a required special setback distance from the front
property line of an additional 10 feet. The special setback only affects the
existing home on proposed Lot 1, which in addition to the minimum front yard
setback of 20 feet, requires a total front yard setback of 30 feet. The existing
home is approximately 40 feet from the front property line, meeting the minimum
setback, The remaining lots would be reviewed for setback compliance at the
time of building permit submittal for future structures.
Section 22.080. Lot Area and Width. In an RS District the minimum
requirements for lot area shall be 6,000 square feet for each dwelling and
SUB 01-01, VAR 01-06
ORDINANCE
Page 7
llB
every lot shall have a minimum width of sixty feet at the front building line,
No dwelling or main building other than a dwelling shall occupy more than
30 percent of the lot area, except where an accessory building is attached
to or made a part of the dwelling, or main building, in which case 35
percent of the lot area may be occupied by such dwelling or main
building... .
FINDING: The existing home on proposed Lot 1 has an attached garage,
allowing the home and garage to cover up to 35 percent of the lot. The existing
home occupies approximately 25 percent of the proposed Lot 1, complying with
the maximum coverage allowed, Future residential structures on the other
proposed lots in this subdivision would be reviewed for compliance with
maximum coverage standards at the time of building permit submittal.
5. Chapter 39. Parkland Dedication and Cash-in-lieu
FINDING: The System Development Charge for park purposes is $1,267.00 per
lot, resulting in a total charge of $5,068,00 for the four lots without residential
structures. There would be no charge for Lot 1 since this fee was paid when the
existing house was constructed.
C. Woodburn Subdivision Standards
Chapter III. Section 6.
(3) No final plat of a proposed subdivision or partition or replat shall be
approved unless:
(b) Streets and roads held for private use and indicated on the
tentative plan for such subdivision, partition or replat have been
approved by the City.
FINDING: The only access extension proposed as part of this subdivision is a
private access drive extending in a north-south direction from E. Hardcastle
Avenue. The access has been marked on the tentative plan through a
separate tract of land and an existing access easement along the east side of
the adjacent Parcel 1.
(6) The subdividing of land shall be such that each lot shall abut on a
public street.
FINDING: There are no public street extensions proposed as part of this
application, Four of the five proposed lots do not abut a public street, and a
SUB 01-01, VAR 01-06
ORDINANCE
Page 8
lIB
variance request is being made from the above-mentioned standard as part of
this application.
Chapter III. Section 7.
for subdivisions shall include the following
A. Tentative plans
information:
a,
b,
c,
d.
e,
f.
g,
h.
I.
J.
k,
Name of proposed subdivision
Vicinity map
Subdivision plan
Names and addresses in notification area
Diagram of water system
Diagram of sewage & storm drain system
Diagram of streets and sidewalk system
Legal description of subject property
Name of proposed streets
Lot numbers
Identification of easements, parkland dedication, and
private utilities,
FINDING: Sufficient information has been submitted by the applicant. Attached
with this report is a preliminary plat that indicates the proposed lots and the
applicable above-listed information.
Section 13 (B). Lots:
All lots shall have a minimum size of the zoning district in which they are
located. In cul-de-sacs the minimum lot line fronting the turnaround shall
be 40 feet, and in the case of a curved lot line where the radius of
curvature is 100 feet or less, the minimum lot line fronting that curvature
shall be 40 feet, and in no cases shall the lot width be less than 60 feet at
the buildinQ line. If topography, drainage, or other conditions justify, the
Commission may require a greater area on any or all lots within a
subdivision. The minimum size for various types of lots shall be as given
in the following table:
Type of Lot
Minimum Width
I nterior lot (fronting one street)
60 feet
FINDING: All lots, although not all fronting public right-of-way, are treated as
interior lots in this subdivision. Each lot has been configured on the preliminary
SUB 01-01, VAR 01-06
ORDINANCE
Page 9
lIB
plat to provide at least 60 feet of width at building lines. The above standard for
lot configuration has been satisfied.
D. Woodburn Si~n Ordinance
FINDING: Other than premises identification required by the Woodburn Fire
District, there are no signs proposed as part of this application at this time, Any
future signs would require approval and/or permit from the Community
Development Department
E. Woodburn Transportation Systems Plan
FINDING: The subdivision furthers the intent of the transportation plan by
limiting the number of public right-of-way accesses serving the subdivision, In
addition, the single-family home on Parcel 1 to the northwest of this subdivision
would have access from the proposed private drive instead of direct access onto
E, Hardcastle, providing for better traffic flow.
F. Woodburn Access Mana~ement Ordinance
FINDING: E, Hardcastle Avenue is classified as a minor arterial in this
Ordinance. Minor arterials are required to have no less than 245 feet between
driveways. This spacing distance is not met due to the existing driveway on Lot 1
and the proposed private drive serving the remainder of the subdivision. This
Ordinance allows the Community Development Director to waive the spacing
requirement if it is not feasible to meet the requirement The existing driveway is
approximately 13 feet from the proposed private drive. Since the driveway on
proposed Lot 1 is existing, and since the proposed location of the private drive
cannot be located elsewhere and must serve as a shared access, the
Community Development Director has waived the 245-foot driveway spacing
distance along E. Hardcastle to allow the 13-foot distance proposed,
VAR 01-06
A. Woodburn Comprehensive Plan
FINDING: Applicable goals and policies have been satisfied through the
implementation of the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance and other applicable
ordinances in affect at the time of approval. The proposed use is residential in
nature, A residential use is compatible with the designated Comprehensive Plan
Map of Low Density Residential on the subject properties,
B. Woodburn Zonin~ Ordinance
SUB 01-01, VAR 01-06
ORDINANCE
Page 10
lIB
1" Chapter 8. General Standards.
Section 8.030. Dwellings and All Other Buildings to be Accessible to
Public Streets. Every dwelling shall be situated on a lot having direct
access by abutting upon a public street or a pre-existing private driveway
of a width of not less than 20 feet and a private drive shall not serve more
than four dwelling units except when approved under Planned
Development.,. ,
FINDING: Four of the five lots are to be created without public right-of-way
frontage. A variance is being requested as part of this proposal from the
standard requiring all lots to abut public right-of-way (referred to as "Variance No,
3" in this report).
In addition, five lots are proposed to access the private drive that would serve
this subdivision. Said access is to be encompassed by a separate tract of land
and a portion of an existing access easement along the east side of a single-
family lot, which is located adjacently to the northeast of the subject site. This lot
was partitioned from TL 6101 as Parcel 1 of Partition Plat 1995-42, herein
referred to as "Parcel 1" (see Exhibit "e"). The existing access easement was
established as part of this partition to provide access to TL 6101, As part of this
subdivision request, this existing easement is proposed to be incorporated into
the proposed private drive, continuing to provide access to Parcel 1 in addition to
the proposed four interior lots. The five lots accessing the private drive exceed
the maximum allowance of four lots. As a result, an additional variance is being
requested as part of this subdivision to allow five lots to access the private drive
(referred to as "Variance No, 1" in this report).
2. Chapter 1 O. Off Street Parking, Loading and Driveway Standards.
Section 10.080. Driveway Standards.
I) Standards for driveways serving more than one dwelling unit:
(5) Maximum depth of a private street shall be 150 feet, measured
from the right-of-way line to the point where the street no longer
serves more than one unit.
(6) Driveways serving private single family detached homes shall:
(c) Serve no more than four units;
(d) Not be allowed unless no practical development of a public
street is possible and the land cannot be otherwise utilized for
urban-type units.
SUB 01-01, VAR 01-06
ORDINANCE
Page 11
lIB
FINDINGS: The applicant is requesting three variances for this proposal, two of
which are from the standards listed in the above subsections, The private street
is proposed to exceed the maximum 150-foot depth with a proposed depth of 250
feet. In addition, the preliminary subdivision plan shows that five lots would
access the private drive through the request of a variance. These variance
requests are further addressed in this report under Chapter 13 "Variance
Procedures".
3. Chapter 13. Variance Procedures.
FINDING: Each of the proposed variances are addressed under the following
criteria and are referenced as follows:
Variance No.1: Request to allow five single-family lots to access off a single
private street where only four are permitted;
Variance No.2: Request to allow the private street to extend 250 feet in depth
from the E. Hardcastle Avenue right-ot-way when only a
maximum of 150 feet is permitted;
Variance No.3 Request to allow single-family residential lots to be created
without right-of-way frontage and to abut private street
frontage when required to abut public right-ot-way.
Section 13.020. Conditions for Granting a Variance.
(a) That there are unnecessary, unreasonable hardships or practical
difficulties which can be relieved only by modifying the literal
requirements of the ordinance;
FINDING: Variance No.1: The City Council finds that even though this
variance would allow for infill residential development on this site, such
development would be limited to the north portion of the property. The south
portion of the property would be left as two large parcels which could not be
developed to their allowed densities. A public street connection through the
subject site would allow the property to be divided into more than five lots, The
Council finds that this variance request does not comply with this criterion.
Variance No.2: There is the possibility of Centennial Drive or a future street
from Lincoln Street extending to the south portion of the site in the tuture which
would allow public street access onto the site. If either street is extended, the
proposed private drive would no longer be the only means available to the
applicant for access to new lots. The City Council finds that the applicant has not
complied with this variance criterion,
SUB 01-01, VAR 01-06
ORDINANCE
Page 12
lIB
Variance No.3: Although the applicant is unable to create more than four lots
with public right-of-way frontage at this time, future extension of Centennial Drive
or a future street from Lincoln Street would relieve the applicant of this difficulty
since a second means of public right-of-way frontage would be available to the
south portion of the site. The City Council finds that the applicant has not
complied with this variance criterion,
(b) That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applying to the land, buildings or use referred to in the
application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally
to land, buildings, or uses in the same district; however, non-
conforming land uses or structures in the vicinity shall not in
themselves constitute such circumstances or conditions;
FINDING: Variance No.1: The City Council finds that there are no
extraordinary circumstances applying to this site that would warrant approval for
four of the proposed lots to be created without right-of-way frontage, As a result,
the finding is that this variance does not comply with the above criterion,
Variance No.2: Without public right-of-way, the property cannot be efficiently
developed as an in-fill site without obtaining additional variances in the future,
and as mentioned, there is the likelihood that a public street will be extended to
the site in the future to allow for more efficient development. The City Council
finds that this variance criterion has not been met.
Variance No.3: The Council finds that the variances requested in this proposal
should not be granted since there is the possibility for the extension of a public
street in the future.
(c) That granting the application will not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or be injurious to property or improvements in the
neighborhood or the premises;
FINDING: Variance No.1: The City Council finds that granting this variance
could be detrimental to the public welfare since there would be limited
enforcement ability of the city to keep the private drive unobstructed for
emergency access. As a result, the Council finds that this variance criterion has
not been met.
Variance No.2: The City Council finds that allowing the private drive to extend
beyond the depth maximum would be injurious to the public welfare since the city
has limited authority to enforce "no" parking on private drives, As a result,
SUB 01-01, VAR 01-06
ORDINANCE
Page 13
lIB
access could be blocked by parked cars which the city would have limited ability
to remove, and the city would therefore be limited in ensuring that emergency
access is maintained, The Council finds that this variance criterion has not been
met.
Variance No.3: Enforcement of no parking on the private drive would be done
through a homeowner's association for the subdivision, In the event that the
association does not enforce it, the city's ability to take over enforcement would
be limited since it is a private drive. The City Council finds that allowing four of
the lots to be accessed solely by a private drive would be injurious to the public
welfare since the city would have limited assurance that the emergency access
to these four lots would be maintained. As a result, the finding is that this
criterion has not been met by this variance request.
(d) That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of the substantial property rights of the petitioner;
FINDING: These variances are not necessary for the preservation of the
substantial property rights of the petitioner in that the property can be fully
developed by the extension of public right-of-way. The City Council finds that the
three variance requests do not meet this criterion,
(e) That granting of the application will not, under the circumstances of
the particular case, adversely affect the health or safety of persons
working or residing in the neighborhood of the property of the
applicant.
FINDING: Variance No.1: The City Council finds that allowing more than four
lots to access a private drive would compromise public health and safety since
access needs for five lots would be converged onto a single access that could be
blocked by parked vehicles, The Council's finding is that this variance request
does not satisfy the above criterion.
Variance No.2: The City Council finds that the protection of health and safety of
individuals residing in the immediate neighborhood could be adversely impacted
by allowing the private drive to exceed its maximum depth due to lack of parking
enforcement and access clearance on the private drive, The Council finds that
the applicant has not met the above criterion for this variance request.
Variance No.3: The City Council finds that enforcement of a "no parking"
provision could become a problem in the future since the city's enforcement
ability would be limited. The finding is that this variance request does not satisfy
the above criterion.
SUB 01-01, VAR 01-06
ORDINANCE
Page 14
lIB
(f) That the granting of the application will be in general harmony with the
intent and purpose of this ordinance and will not adversely affect any
officially adopted comprehensive plan,
FINDING: Variance NO.1: The City Council finds that this variance request
would not be in general harmony with intent and purpose of this ordinance since
the number of lots allowed to access a single private drive would be exceeded in
this proposal.
Variance No.2. The City Council finds that this variance request does not allow
this in-fill site to be efficiently developed nearly to its potential without a public
street on the property and compromises public safety. Considering the possibility
of extending a public street to the south portion of the site in the future, the
Council further finds that efficient development and public safety could be better
ensured on the site at such time with a public street connection, The Council
finds that this variance request does not satisfy the above criterion.
Variance No.3: The intent and purpose of this Ordinance is to promote public
safety. The City Council finds that this variance request would not be in general
harmony with the Ordinance since four of the lots are proposed without right-of-
way frontage, The Council further finds that access to these lots could be
hindered because the city would have limited authority in keeping the private
drive unobstructed, The Council finds that the applicant has not met the above
criterion for this variance request.
C. Woodburn Subdivision Standards
Chapter III Section 6
(6) The subdividing of land shall be such that each lot shall abut on a
public street.
FINDING: There are no public street extensions proposed as part of this
application. Four of the five proposed lots do not abut a public street. Thus, the
City Council denies the subdivision proposal since the Council finds that the
requested variances, which would allow these four lots to be created without
public street frontage, do not meet the variance criteria,
Chapter V. Section 20. Variances to the Reaulations:
SUB 01-01, VAR 01-06
ORDINANCE
Page 15
lIB
A. The Commission may consider a variance of any requirements set
forth in these standards, upon application by the subdivider, The
basic considerations for granting a variance will be proof that:
(1) Special physical conditions or circumstances peculiar to the
property under consideration make a variance necessary,
(2) That the variance is necessary for the proper development of the
subdivision and the preservation of property rights and values,
(3) That the variance will not be present or hereafter be detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to other properties or persons
adjacent to or in the vicinity of the proposed subdivision.
Consideration for a variance from these regulations shall be based
upon a written statement by the subdivider in which is given complete
details of consideration and reasons why a specific variance should
be granted. A request for a variance from these regulations shall be
filed with the Planning Commission prior to presentation of the final
plat for approval. No variance will be considered after a plat has been
recorded.
FINDING: The above criteria for variance consideration have been addressed
previously in the report under Chapter 13 of the Zoning Ordinance. It is
specifically stated that the proposed subdivision would not be possible without
the approval of the three said variance requests, The applicant has provided a
written statement which addresses the variance criteria and describes the
reasons for requesting the variances. As stated in the section of this report
addressing Chapter 13 of the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance, the City Council finds
(as affirmation to the findings of the Planning Commission) that the criteria for
granting variances have not been met on any of the three variances requested as
part of this proposal.
The City Council finds that a private street through the property would not allow
for the proper development of the site. A future public street connection could be
made to the south via a connection with Centennial Drive or a future street from
Lincoln Street, which would allow for additional lots to be created, These lots
would therefore have public right-of-way access. The applicant's variance
requests would not be necessary with the public street connection.
D. Woodburn Access Manaaement Ordinance
FINDING: E. Hardcastle Avenue is classified as a minor arterial in this
Ordinance. Minor arterials are required to have no less than 245 feet between
driveways, This spacing distance is not met due to the existing driveway on Lot 1
SUB 01-01, VAR 01-06
ORDINANCE
Page 16
lIB
and the proposed private drive serving the remainder of the subdivision. This
Ordinance allows the Community Development Director to waive the spacing
requirement if it is not feasible to meet the spacing requirement. The existing
driveway on proposed Lot 1 is approximately 13 feet from the proposed private
drive. Since the driveway on Lot 1 is existing, and since the proposed location of
the private drive cannot be located elsewhere and must serve as a shared
access, the Community Development Director has waived the 245-foot driveway
spacing distance along E. Hardcastle to allow the 13-foot distance proposed.
VI. CONCLUSION:
Based on the information contained herein and the applicable review criteria, the
City Council finds that this proposal does not satisfy all approval criteria relating
to the subdivision and variance applications.
SUB 01-01, VAR 01-06
ORDINANCE
Page 17
IIC
MEMO
FROM:
City Council through City Administrator~?",
//// /(// .
~y J:<1 p- ./~
Public Works Program Manager /.-<? ..
TO:
SUBJECT: Authorization for Transit Bus Purchase
DATE:
November 6, 2001
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize utilizing an existing public agency contract with Basin Transit Service for the
purchase of a transit bus from Schetky Northwest Sales for $138,125,00.
BACKGROUND: The fiscal year 2001-2002 budget includes $139,200 for purchase
of a new transit bus. City Council on August 27, 2001 entered into an agreement with
the Oregon Department of Transportation for a grant that will fund 89,73% of the
proposed bus purchase,
The city evaluated existing contracts that other public agencies in the state had
awarded for transit bus purchases. There was an existing contract from Basin Transit
Service in Klamath Falls that met the city's requirements for a transit bus. The existing
contract is for a bus model that the city already has in service and which has proven to
be a dependable and efficient vehicle, Other contracts evaluated did not meet the city's
requirements,
ORS 279.015(1 )(g) authorizes the city to use other public agency's contracts if they: 1)
met public contracting requirements, 2) allowed other public agencies usage of the
contract and 3) the original public contracting agency concurred,
All three of the above conditions were met by the Basin Transit Service contract that
was evaluated by the city. The contract was:
BIDDER
Schetky Northwest Sales
AMOUNT
$ 138,125,00
Staff is recommending that authorization be given to using an existing contract from
Basin Transit Service to purchase a transit bus from Schetky Northwest Sales for
$138,125.00,
lID
City of Woodburn
Police Department
Staff Report
270 Montgomery Street
Woodburn, Oregon 97071
(503) 982-2352
Date:
November 7, 2001 ~
Paul Null, Chief of POI~
Mayor and City Council
John Brown, City Administrato~
From:
To:
Through:
Subject:
Sound Amplification Permit - Woodburn Company Stores
Ordinance 1900,3, (5)
The use or operation of an automatic or electric piano,
phonograph, loudspeaker or sound-amplifying device so
loudly as to disturb persons in the vicinity thereof or in such
manner as renders the same a public nuisance; provided
however, that upon application to the Council permits may
be granted to responsible persons or organizations to
broadcast programs of music; news speeches or general
entertainment.
The police department has received a request for a sound amplification permit from
Michelle Daily, Marketing Director, Woodburn Company Stores. The request is for
Sunday, November 18, 2001, from 5:00 - 6:00 p.m. The permit is to allow for live
musical entertainment in conjunction with a Christmas tree lighting ceremony at
Woodburn Company Stores. The event is open to the community.
Recommendation: The City Council approve a sound amplification permit for
Woodburn Company Stores on Sunday, November 18, 2001, from 5:00 to 6:00 p.m,
lID
~~~J~~[Q)
November 5, 2001
John Brown
City Administrator
City of Woodburn
270 Montgomery Street
V!oodburn. OR 97071
Dear John:
Woodburn Company Stores would like to request a permit for
amplification on November 18, 2001.
November 18th will mark the third annual tree lighting at Woodburn
Company Stores. Our Oregon grown Christmas tree will stand 68' tall
and be decorated and lit. The tree lighting ceremony, which is being held
on a Sunday evening will provide family entertainment for all. Our
entertainment will include Johnny Limbo and the Lugnuts, Frosty the
Snowman, Rudolf and of course, Santa Claus. We are also guaranteeing
snow this year! We plan to entertain the audience from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00
p.m.
Please let me know if you require further information prior to issuing the
permit.
Sincerely,
, (
'. . ~ I
(' ~C-t{:{(L ' '-''-
Michelle Daily
Marketing Director
.~-c~
WOODBURN
COMPANY STORES
100 1 Arn~y [{oad, ;r;t=;0H. Woodhurn, Or~gon 97071
=;0,-)-9Hl-[900 Fax =;03-9H2-743-1
www,w()(Klhu rne< )l1lpanystor~s,c(Jl11
lIE
City of Woodburn
Police Department
STAFF REPORT
270 Montgomery Street
Woodburn OR 97071
(503) 982-2345
Date:
November 8, 2001
From:
Paul Null, Chief of Po Ii
To:
Mayor and City Council fi
John Brown, City Administrator
Through:
Subject:
Liquor License Application - Salvador's Bakery III
Applicant:
Salvador Larios
1265 Parkview Ct.
Woodburn, OR 97071
Location:
Salvador's Bakery III
320 N. Pacific Hwy.
Woodburn, OR 97071
Licence Type: Limited On-Premise Sales - Allows for the sale of Malt Beverage, Wine, and
Cider on premise.
Recommendation: The Woodburn City Council approve a Limited On-Premise
liquor license for Salvador's Bakery III.
On October 16, 2001, the police department received an application for a liquor license from
Salvador Larios, owner of Salvador's Bakery III. Mr. Salvador currently holds an Off-Premise
Liquor License for this establishment and has held this license since 1996, The department has
completed an extensive background and criminal records investigation on Mr. Larios, No
criminal record and nothing of a questionable nature was found in his background.
Mr. Larios was contacted during the course of the investigation in regards to the operational plan
for his establishment. Mr. Larios advised he is remodeling the northern portion of his building
into a banquet facility. He advised he wants to provide a facility private citizens can rent to
celebrate special events such as birthdays, weddings, and Quinceanera's. The business hours of
operation will be from 5:00 p,m, to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Sunday, On occasion the hours
of operation may extend beyond 10:00 p.m. depending on event needs. Mr. Larios advised the
current restaurant will continue to operate as is. Mr. Larios advised there will be recorded and
live music to allow for dancing at these events.
The police department has received no written communication from the general public or
surrounding businesses in support of or against this establishment receiving an additional liquor
license.
lIE
Due to the nature ofthe establishment and it's possible negative impact on the surrounding
community}he police department contacted neighboring businesses and residence and asked for
input.
Mr. Dale Nelson, 345 N. Pacific Hwy, - Mr. Nelson's business is located North of
Salvador's Bakery III. Mr. Nelson advised he has already been contacted by Mr. Larios
regarding the new facility, Mr. Nelson said he is not in favor of nor against the issuance
of a liquor license.
Mrs. Sonia Kool, 320 N. Pacific Hwy, - Mrs, Kool's residence is located North of
Salvador's Bakery III and shares a common alleyway. Mrs, Kool advised she has some
concerns surrounding the issuance of a liquor license, She stated she is concerned that
there wold be an increase in traffic passing in front of her residence due to the common
alleyway. Mrs. Kool is also concerned with an increase in trash in the area, increased
foot traffic, loitering, drinking in the parking lot, and increased noise, detracting from
overall livability in the neighborhood.
Mrs, Elizabeth Reistra, 300 N. Pacific Hwy. - Mrs. Reistra's business is located South
and physically connected to the Salvador's Bakery III's building. Mrs, Reistra advised
they had no concerns regarding the issuance of a liquor license, but is concerned about
litter that has been left in business parking lot from previous events,
Mrs. Janice Zyryanoff, 1155 Young Street - Mrs, Zyryanoffs business is located South
and is physically connected to the Salvador's Bakery Ill's building. Mrs, Zyryanoff
stated she is naturel on the issuance of a liquor license,
Mrs. Robin Schader, 1265 George Street - Mrs, Schader's residence is located directly
behind (East) of Salvador's Bakery III. Mrs, Schader advised she has no objections or
concerns with the type of activity Mr. Larios has planned for his business.
I met with Mr. Larios and discussed the police departments concerns regarding noise and traffic
impacting the surrounding neighborhood as his business abuts a residential. area. I suggested to
Mr. Larios that sound proofing the building to reduce sound emitting from inside the building
would help mitigate the effects on the neighborhood. There is also a public alleyway that is
behind the building running North and South. A private residence (Mrs. Kool) sits on and faces
this alleyway. I suggested to Mr. Larios the alleyway be blocked off at the rear of his parking lot
as to prevent vehicles from exiting North out of the parking lot. Mr. Larios agreed to implement
all the conditions and to work with the surrounding neighbors to mitigate unforseen problems.
Mr. Larios advised he will also provide private security at the events who will insure traffic does
not exit North from the parking lot.
Salvador's Bakery III has met the City of Woodburn /OLCC criteria for liquor license renewal
(Off-Premise) each year since 1996. Mr. Larios has been very responsive in working to
mitigate potential problems arising from the banquet facility and has demonstrated his
willingness to control the proposed premise and patrons, Mr. Larios liquor license request falls
within the criteria guidelines established by City Council Resolution,
cc OLCC
Applicant
IlF
November 13, 2001
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and City Council ,\~
John C. Brown, City AdministratOI.c:->-fCA?--"
Ward Boundaries
Recommendation:
It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached ordinance, relating to
reapportionment of ward boundaries,
Background:
Each city that elects city councilors on the basis of ward representation is
required to examine and, if necessary, modify ward boundaries within the same
year the results of the decennial census are released. The following process was
followed in modifying ward boundaries pursuant to the 2000 decennial census:
On June 25, 2000, the City Council selected the criteria to be used in
reapportioning the City's wards, and authorized an agreement with the Mid-
Willamette Valley Council of Governments (COG) to update Woodburn's Ward
Boundaries. The Council selected as its reapportionment criteria those
enumerated in State law, which require:
. Each district, as nearly as practicable, shall:
(a), be contiguous
(b). be of equal population
(c). utilize existing geographic or political boundaries
(d). not divide communities of common interest
(e). be connected by transportation links;
. No district shall be drawn for the purpose of favoring any political party,
incumbent legislator or other person
. No district shall be drawn for the purpose of diluting the voting strength
of any language or ethnic minority.
The Council also asked that each incumbent's residence should be retained
within the same ward number. All these criteria were used as the basis for
reapportionment in the past.
The agreement with the COG provided for development of reapportionment
alternatives, conduct of a community workshop, and refinement of a selected
alternative, based on a proposal presented to the City earlier in June 2001.
Honorable Mayor and City Council
November 13,2001
Page 2,
IlF
Information regarding the Council's reapportionment criteria was provided to
the COG. Also provided was information submitted to the Council by the
Oregon Latino Voter Registration Education Project (OL VREP), resident Preston
Tack, and the Senior Estates Community Relations Committee, and a map
showing the bounds of the Senior Estates Golf and Country Club. The COG
developed four reapportionment alternatives that addressed the Council's
criteria and took into account, to the extent possible, the respective concerns of
these groups. Alternatives varied, based on the extent to which goals of
contiguity, compact form, relationship to geographic features and transportation
links, and the percentage of deviation from a target population of 3350 for each
ward, were addressed.
On September 17, 2001, the City Council conducted a workshop to consider ward
boundary alternatives, The Council discussed the alternatives and considered
the comments of members of the Senior Estates, and OL VREP. At the
conclusion of the workshop, the Council requested a fifth alternative, In
requesting the fifth alternative the Council sought an option that provides
stronger representation of the Senior Estates community, and anticipates the
effect of future growth on populations in each ward,
Discussion:
On October 8,2001 the City Council considered and selected Alternative 5 as its
preferred reapportionment alternative, and directed staff to prepare an
ordinance relating to reapportionment of ward boundaries, As indicated,
Alternative 5 may provide stronger representation of the Senior Estates
community in Ward 4, within the context of anticipating future growth,
Alternative 5 was also developed consistent with the Council's criteria, and took
into account to the extent possible the respective concerns of the OL VREP and
Senior Estates groups.
Attached, for your consideration and approval is an ordinance that reapportions
ward boundaries, pursuant to Alternative 5 and the 2000 census. Please note that
the map included with your agenda package is Alternative 5 as prepared by the
COG. That map does not reflect recent annexations or most City street names, A
revised map is currently being prepared by City GIS staff, and will be provided
for approval at your November 13,2001 meeting.
lCB
I1F
COUNCIL BILL NO. 2358
ORDINANCE NO.
An ordinance relating to reapportionment of ward boundaries, repealing Ordinance
2075, and declaring an emergency.
Whereas, the City Charter apportions the City into six wards, and requires alteration of
the ward boundaries not less than once every ten years to maintain an equal population
distribution; and
Whereas, the City Council has undertaken and completed a public process to reapportion
ward boundaries following the 2000 census; and
\Vhereas, the City Council considered several alternatives, and selected a preferred
alternative for reapportionment of ward boundaries which is in accordance with the equal
population distribution and other criteria selected by the City Council; and
Whereas, formal adoption of the ward boundaries, by City Ordinance, is required. Now
Therefore,
The City of Woodburn Ordains as Follows:
Section 1. That the City Of Woodburn is hereby divided into six wards, which shall be
designated as Wards I, II, III, IV, V, and VI.
Section 2. That the boundaries of the six wards created by section 1 above shall be as
indicated on a map known as "Ward Map of2001", a copy of which is attached hereto
and, by this reference, incorporated herein,
Section 3. That two (2) copies of said ward map are on file in the office of the City
Recorder, and said map of boundaries indicated thereon are hereby adopted until such
time as they shall be amended or abolished by ordinance or Charter.
Section 4. That Ordinance 2075 is repealed.
Section 5, That a copy of this ordinance and the attached Ward Map of 200 1 be sent to
the elections department of Marion County,
Section 6. This ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public
peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist and this ordinance shall take
effect immediately upon passage by the Council and approval by tbe Mayor.
Approved as to form~f rrvr rye) / 1- g - ZoO I
City Attorney Date
Page 1 - Council Bill No.
Ordinance No,
.
.
MEMO
TO:
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
THRU PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
DEAN MORRISON, P.E., PROJECT ENGINEER ;1}r'~
ERODED BANK OF PUDDING RIVER THAT IS IN CLOSE
PROXIMITY TO WWTP DISCHARGE LINE
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
NOVEMBER 13,2001
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize City to act as a general contractor and hire sub-
contractors to accomplish emergency river bank rip-rap work prior to slope failure at an
estimated cost of $27,000.00
BACKGROUND: It appears that the wastewater outfall line will fail if riverbank failure takes
place during this rainy season. To protect the bank, emergency action needs to be taken. The
cost of outfall line replacement is likely to exceed $100,000.00. Therefore, emergency rip-rap
work is necessary.
During late May 2001, about 80 cubic yards of material slid out from the north bank of the
Pudding River at highway mile 1.3 (from the intersection of Highway 99E and Highway 211.)
Three factors are thought to have caused this:
1. Weakening over the years from surface water always traversing over this water course.
2. Flood of 1996.
3. Testing of plant during start-up.
The last factor occurred during a test for maximum flow through the new plant. It is believed
by this writer to be the final blow that was needed to initiate failure.
Permit for the work has been secured from the State Division of Lands. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers has written an internal memo recommending approval. It has to be approved by their
final authority. They have promised a decision by the week of November 12,2001.
Memo to Mayor and Council
November 13, 2001
Page 2
The work will be done by helicopter. The bank is very steep and presently very slick. It is not
recommended to attempt rip-rap placement under the wet conditions of late fall using wheeled or
tracked equipment.
All pricing is not in yet, but enough is in to establish that a range of between $25,000 and
$30,000 is plausible.
~
>
~..
l=fj
"
o
C/fl
~
o ",
Z
~
"
~
~
~
~
t=3
,P=t
o
Z
..~
o
-4t
~
~
-t
."
o'
c
..
0-
-
-
o
::J
~
Q.
Q.
-.
::J
C
,:;0
'-'
1<
(I)
..,
~.
::0
-.
<.
"~"
3:
-.
-
(I)
I~
~I-
~
r'I1
5<
:to
"'r,
..
<<.OID<<.OID<<'o ----
NIII-I:> ID<<.OIDO ---
___ ....... 0000 ____. d
II I II O_NIII-I:>ooooo-:------
I I I ~m~m ---- ---
o~ I I I I I I · 0 - N " A . ;;; - - - N
II III ~m\QO
1!11~1 I I [h
~ i;! -'-
~::: J S
tIj I'll
~ ~
...."" I I n
1\)1"'" il ~~
\l:l P i'
. _ >-,-. _ ;..:;f'" ~- --; ~
I OJ;; · -- .(<,1 .J. · ·
E ) I{J- ~
; i ~ ~ ~''-:07~il ~ 1~ ~ - --~
~,I5' ~ ~ III ~ 7/1/ III
NI~: ~ 1J ~
~ ~ J ~t' ~~- -~--
g [ :j! ill ~'_ ~ - ,;;.VV . >- --5
r", ~,. i;;~...~'" ~N ~ ", / ' I
17 " . ~ ~ i .? ~"I; ~ c
/ / ~ o~ '.. \:\" I · I
/ ~~
/ (,/l ::l I"'" ,...
/ r:: s '\ ....1/1' ~\l, /
~ ~ 'c- ~ vII I)~
~f "''''''':::0;
~ ~ r -'J -, / () 1 ~
g o. T II v~< - ;
~ 1/~?21~'
~ ~! I/~ V~ /1/ ~ ~
1;; ~. J V'./ :l "
:-i I /1/ oQ
I 1/ [/ 1/ / . 1 ~
I ( -, ~
1/ il I / I ~ ii'
... I II I n - 3-'
OJ 0
_ I '.. ~
~ II' / . / 1/ f~ ~
~ 111/ 1// ~a r<
ii": - T -n / ij ~ 3
(,/l. 1:C . - ~
I [js ~ '0
1/ /-118 I I 1
(,/l _
0.-
o
~ .
~ uJ-
III ~, .
~ C
- :z
~ lTI
......
00
......
l>l>
rr
" "
c.ol\)
Pg
~......
~,n
r;e
\)
te>~
cD~
0:
,i
l'~
n
c
rr
t)'
III
if
N
1--1__ 0
-8
Ciillll '"tJ
. C .
" o~-
_ -1 '
b 0
~. ."
i ~
It 0 /
i (J) I\) ii
. ~ (,/l.
I
I
-
i
I
1
a 1
I I' I ~
~l I I I I I I I I
1-.-1 J
~
\
0,
CJl
1.
~
m
1.
\
-
CJl
-
I\)
-
~
~
o
lTI
Z
-1'
",
::0
r'
~
o
."
r'I1
~
o
z
o
~
--
I
ox
c:
f:1'
Q)
,
,
Cf
,.
...
~
//,
6'
/'~~
~
%
14A
CITY OF WOODBURN
Community Development
MEMORANDUM
270 Montgomery Street
Woodburn, Oregon 97071
(503) 982-5246
From:
November 12, 2001
Honorable Mayor and City Council thru City AdministratoP
Jim Mulder, Director of Community Development ~
Planning Commission's Action on Variance 01-11 to increase the size
of an existing freestanding sign for an additional sign panel and to add
a wall sign.
Date:
To:
Subject:
At their meeting of October 25, 2001, the Planning Commission adopted a final order
approving a Variance to increase the size of an existing freestanding sign and an
additional wall sign on a multi-tenant office building located at 1014 Newberg Hwy. This
decision is final unless the City Council calls this decision up for review.
Applicant: Jeff Lorenz, Assistant Administrator of Silverton Hospital
342 Fairview
Silverton, OR 97381-1993
Property Owner: Edward & Marilyn Krupicka
P.O. Box 390
. Woodburn, OR 97071
NA lURE OF APPLlCA liON: The applicant requested approval of a variance to allow
an additional wall sign on the north side of an office complex building facing the
Newberg Highway. Said wall sign will be allowed up to 36 square feet in size and will
be an additional sign to the four (4) wall signs that are currently on the building. A
variance is required since the Woodburn Sign Ordinance allows only one wall sign per
building in the Commercial Office (CO) District, the zoning designated for the subject
site.
The applicant also received approval for a 12 square foot panel addition on top of the
complex's existing freestanding sign along the Newberg Hwy. This addition will increase
the overall size of the business center sign from 48 to 60 square feet and increase the
height from 18 feet to 20 feet. The Woodburn Sign Ordinance allows one detached sign
for a business center use not to exceed 32 square feet in area in the CO District. The
size of the existing freestanding sign is legal non-conforming, and a variance is required
in order to further increase its size. Both signs will advertise an "Urgent Care Center"
on the site.
1
14A
RELEVANT FACTS: The subject site is located at 1014 Newberg Highway. The
property is identified specifically on Marion County Tax Assessor's Maps as T5S, R1W,
Section 07CA, Tax Lot 1000.
The subject site and the property to the east are zoned Commercial Office and
designated for commercial development on the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan. The
properties to the west and south (across Church Street) are zoned Multiple Family
Residential and designated for residential development greater than 12 units per acre.
The property to the north (across Newberg Highway 214) is zoned Public and Private
Educational Facilities and designated for open space and parks on the Woodburn
Comprehensive Plan.
An existing 48 square foot, 18 foot tall legal non-conforming detached business center
sign is located along the east side of the site's Newberg Highway entrance. There are
two existing wall signs located on north wall of the building where the applicant will
place the additional wall sign, and two more signs are located on the east wall of the
building facing a parking lot. None of the proposed or existing signs face residential
properties.
Both signs will advertise an Urgent Care Center which is located within the same
building space as the Woodburn Family Clinic but operates at different hours. The
Woodburn Family Clinic operates during normal business hours from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. Monday through Friday, and the Urgent Care Clinic operates from 6:00 p.m. to
10:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekends. The applicant has
indicated that the physicians in the Woodburn Family Clinic are expected to be
relocated to the new Tukwila Center on Glatt Circle in approximately eight months, after
which time the Urgent Care Center will continue to utilize the existing space.
2
14B
CITY OF WOODBURN
Community Development
MEMORANDUM
270 Montgomery Street
Woodburn, Oregon 97071
(503) 982-5246
Date:
November 12, 2001 .
Honorable Mayor and City Council thru City Administrato.P
Jim Mulder, Director of Community Development ~
Planning Commission's Action on Partition 01-04 to partition a 148.76
acre lot into 2 parcels located west of Harvard Drive and south of
Evergreen Road.
To:
From:
Subject:
At their meeting of October 25, 2001, the Planning Commission accepted the Planning
Director's decision to approve a Partition of vacant property located west of Harvard
Drive and south of Evergreen Road. This decision is final unless the City Council calls
this decision up for review.
Applicant:
Chad Juranek
P.O. Box 145
Wilsonville, OR 97070
Property Owner: Capital Development Company
711 Sleater Kinney Road SE
Lacey, WA 98503-1124
NATURE OF THE APPLICATION: The applicant requested to partition the subject
property into two separate parcels.
RELEVANT FACTS: The subject property is located east of Interstate 5, west of
Harvard Drive and Evergreen Road and south of Stacy Allison Way. It is further
identified on Marion County Assessor Maps as Township 5 South, Range 2 West,
Sections 12C & 13, Tax Lot #200.
The property is flat and vacant. It is approximately 148.76 acres in size. The property
is to be divided into two parcels. Parcel 1 will be 143.43 acres in size, and Parcel 2 will
be 5.33 acres.
The subject property has several zoning designations including Commercial General
District (CG), Multiple Family Residential District (RM), and Single Family Residential
District (RS). Parcel 1 will retain all three zoning designations. Parcel 2 will only be
1
'-
14B
zoned RM. The applicant is not proposing to develop the property at this time. The
applicant will undergo the site plan review process in the future.
The properties to the north of the subject site are zoned RS and CG and to the east are
zoned RM, RS and Residential District (RIS). The property to the south is located
outside of the city limits. An existing Wal-Mart Store is located to the north of the
subject site on CG zoned property. Single family residential subdivisions are located to
the northeast of the subject site on RS zoned land. A retirement community is being
built on the RM zoned land east of the subject site (across Harvard Drive).
The applicant submitted a preliminary site plan showing conceptually how the proposed
parcel 2 could be developed for 136 multiple family residential units. The applicant has
not requested site plan review approval as part of the partition request.
2
14C
CITY OF WOODBURN
Community Development
MEMORANDUM
270 Montgomery Street
Woodburn, Oregon 97071
(503) 982-5246
Date:
November 12, 2001
To:
Honorable Mayor and City Council thru City Administrator
Jim Mulder, Director of Community Development rJ;-v,
Planning Commission's Action on Partition 01-~ to partition a 0.91
acre property into 2 lots located along Stark Street and "A" Street.
From:
Subject:
At their meeting of October 25, 2001, the Planning Commission accepted the Planning
Director's decision to approve a Partition of vacant property located at 226 Stark Street.
This decision is final unless the City Council calls this decision up for review.
Applicant:
Robert L. Engle
Engle & Schmidtman
610 Glatt Circle
Woodburn, OR 97071
Property Owner: Hitolito & Marta Garcia
1430 E. Cleveland Street
Woodburn, OR 97071
NATURE OF THE APPLICATION: The applicant requested to partition a residential
property into two separate parcels. The property is currently in an "L n shape and fronts
on two separate streets. The Partition will create a new property line in an east-west
direction in the middle of the property. The applicants wish to sell one of the lots and
retain the other. There are currently no development plans for either of the proposed
lots.
RELEVANT FACTS: The subject property is located just south of the downtown and
fronts on Stark Street and "A" Street. It is addressed as 226 Stark Street, further
identified on Marion County Assessor Maps as Township 5 South, Range 1 West,
Section 188D, Tax Lot 6600.
The property is fairly flat with the exception of a drainage way that extends through its
west portion. The property is currently 39,546 square feet (0.91 ac.) in size. Although it
fronts on two streets, the subject property is not a corner lot. There are two separate
lots with single-family homes between the subject property and the intersection of Stark
and "A" Streets, and the subject property extends around them to the southwest.
1
14C
The property is to be divided into two parcels. Parcel 1 is to be 20,000 square feet in
size and will be the northerly extension of the property along Stark St. Parcel 2 will be
18,737 square feet (as a result of a Public Works condition of approval that 809 square
feet be dedicated for right-of-way along "A" Street) and will be the easterly extension
along "A" Street. The section of Stark Street along Parcel 1 is currently improved with
pavement, curbs and gutters. The section of "A" Street extending along Parcel 2 is
currently unimproved with a gravel surface. The property owner plans to retain Parcel 1
and sell Parcel 2.
Designated zoning for the subject property and all of its adjacent properties is Single-
Family Residential (RS) District. The adjacent uses to the north (across Stark Street),
east (across "A" Street) and south consist of single-family homes. There are two
adjacent properties to the west consisting of a church, "House of Zion Christian
Fellowship" (also owned by the same owners of the subject property), and a vacant field
south of the church.
2
15A
~ovember13,2001
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and City Counci~J3
John C. Brown, City Administrator
Financial System Purchase
Background and Discussion:
Last year, the Budget Committee and City Council approved the three-year,
lease-purchase of a new financial system. Costs of $115,000 were budgeted for
2001-02. The total cost for three years was estimated at $294,000. Although
lease-purchase financing was approved, Budget Committee members expressed
interest in other financing options, including internal borrowing from various
City funds.
On October 26, 2001, the City Council approved the bid of, and authorized me to
execute a contract with, ~ew World Systems for a financial system (Attachment
1). We are finalizing contract language, and it is anticipated the agreement will
be executed in the coming week.
In reviewing draft contract documents, the City Attorney expressed a number of
concerns regarding lease purchase of the system. Although a lease purchase can
be structured to alleviate those concerns, staff believes there are less complicated
ways to finance the project that would reduce or eliminate costs associated with
interest charges. Interest on the purchase was estimated at $12,000.
Following the closing of the books for 2000-01 it was determined that beginning
General Fund balance for 2001-02 is $302,000 greater than what was budgeted.
This money is available to finance additional needs and/ or to increase General
Fund Contingency. Were this funding not available, staff would recommend an
internal borrowing from Capital funds. The funds would benefit, as the interest
rate charged to the project would be greater than the investment earning rate on
those funds, and the project would benefit because the interest rate charged from
internal borrowing would be lower than private lending rates. Because
additional General Fund balance is available, however, there appears to be no
reason to pursue an internal borrowing. A one-time purchase from the General
Fund simplifies the purchase, maintains the availability of monies in the Capital
Funds for intended projects, eliminates the accounting associated with debt
administration, and eliminates interest charges from project costs.
For these reasons, it is staff's intention to execute an agreement with ~ew World
Systems that provides for payment in full in 2001-02. The agreement with ~ew
Honorable Mayor and City Council
November 13, 2001
Page 2.
15A
World will provide for three progress payments during the installation and
testing of the system. The $115,000 budgeted for 2001-02 will be sufficient to
support progress payments anticipated through January 2002. A supplemental
budget hearing will need to be held at mid-year, however, in order to
appropriate the additional monies needed to pay the remainder of the system
purchase in this fiscal year.
Staff will proceed in contracting with New World Systems pursuant to this
option, unless otherwise directed at your meeting of November 13,2001. If you
have any questions regarding this matter prior to the meeting, please contact me.
JCB
cc: Budget Committee members
Mr. Ben Gillespie, Finance Director
15A
MEMO
Date:
Mayor and Council
Ben Gillespie, Finance Director t{~1l
John Brown, City Administrato~:)J ,'I
October 4,2001
To:
From:
Subject:
Contract Award for Financial System Software
Recommendation: That the Council:
Award the contract for financial system software to New World Systems
Direct staff to finalize negotiations of the contract.
Authorize the City Administrator to sign the contract
Back~round: Eden Systems, the City's current financial systems software supplier, announced
last year that it would not support the City's version of its software after December 31, 2001.
That lent some urgency to efforts already underway to select replacement software.
A request for proposal was mailed to 29 vendors, Five responded:
Aris (proposing Oracle)
Eden System
Mitchel/Humphrey
New World Systems
Springbrook
Three teams were formed to review the proposals:
Users' Team
Technical Team
Management Team
Prior to examining the proposals each team established the criteria it would use to evaluate the
submittals. After reviewing the written materials provided by each vendor, the teams agreed to
drop Aris and Mitchell/Humphrey from further consideration. Although the reasoning for
dropping these two vendors was complex, the essential reasons were these: To adequately
15A
support the Aris software at least one additional position would have to added, MitchelV
Humphrey's product is oriented more to the private sector than municipal accounting,
At that point team members called at least three references for each or the remaining three
vendors. In selecting references weight was given to municipalities of similar size in the
Northwest.
In preparation for the vendors' demonstrations, each team developed questions to be asked of all
vendors and vendor specific questions, Each demonstration/interview lasted one day,
The Technical Team did site visits where practical. In some cases the nearest installation was too
far away to justify the travel expense. In those cases phone calls were substituted for a site visit,
Costs for the three vendors are:
Life Cycle
Costs
First Year
Costs
Eden Systems
New World
Springbrook
420,125
340,044
287,305
249,128
271,819
268,750
All three teams were unanimous in their selection of New World, Although New World's
proposal was not the lowest life cycle cost, it is deemed to be the best value. Their systems are
more full featured, and they make it easier to navigate to where a user wants to be. This makes
for more efficient systems, and that improves productivity,
The systems included in New World's proposal are:
General Ledger including
Budget
Purchasing
Accounts Payable
Human Resources including
Payroll
Personnel
Utility Billing
Financial Implications:
Cost were uncertain at the beginning of the project. Milwaukie had converted just the general
ledger system for $140,000; Clackamas River Water District had converted all systems for
$450,000. City management felt the conversion could be done for $294,000 and budgeted
15A
accordingly, The expectation was that the City would replace the general ledger and the budget
system at a minimum, Then, to the extent that the budget allowed other modules would be
included,
New World's proposal for all systems is $218,000, which includes a new server. Staffis
negotiating the details, and the final cost is expected to be somewhat less than that number. The
total estimated capital costs are:
Software
Server
Desktop upgrades
Backfilling positions
Contingency
Interest
TOTAL
$181,000
37,000
3,000
20,000
25,000
12.000
$ 278,000
That is well within the budgeted amount. However, the increase in the annual maintenance was
not anticipated, Maintenance is currently $6,000 per year, Maintenance under the new contract
will be $24,000 per year. This will be financed by increasing the rental rate paid by users per PC,
OPENING STATEMENT FOR LAND USE HEARINGS
REQUIRED BY ORS CHAPTER 197
This is the time set for public hearing in the matter of Site Plan Review 01-10
The nature ofthis hearing is to review the Woodburn Planning Commission's decision on said
application. The Planning Commission at its meeting of October 11,2001 approved Site Plan
Review 01-10 which amended conditions of approval #1 and #23 of Site Plan Review 00-18 for
Phases II and III of the Woodburn Company Stores. The proposed amendments to conditio~ of
approval # 1 and #23 would effect driveway access and street improvements on Arney Lane
(formerly Arney Road).
The applicant in this matter is Craig Realty Group - Woodburn LLC.
1. The law requires the City to list all substantive criteria relevant to each hearing. The
applicable substantive criteria is listed in the notice of public hearing and is as follows:
A WOODBURN ZONING ORDINANCE
Chapter 7. Public Hearings
Chapter 10. Off-Street Parking, Loading and Driveway Standards
Chapter 11. Site Plan Review
B. WOODBURN TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN
C. WOODBURN ACCESS MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
The full text of all listed criteria is printed in the staff report which has been distributed prior
to this hearing.
2. All testimony and evidence must be directed toward these criteria or other criteria in the plan
or land use regulation which the person testifYing believes apply to the decision. Please relate
your testimony to the listed criteria.
3 . The failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the
City Council, and the parties, an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes appeal to the
Land Use Board of Appeals based on that issue.
4. The failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed
conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Council to respond to the issue
precludes an action for damages in circuit court.
5 . Any participant may request, before the conclusion of the initial evidentiary hearing, an
opportunity to present additional evidence or testimony. The City Council shall grant the
request by either:
(a) continuing the public hearing to a specific date and time at least seven days from
the date of the initial evidentiary hearing, or
C:\Mulder's X-Files\Woodbum Files\Other\Opening Statement for City Council Hearing.wpd
(b) leaving the record open for at least seven days for additional written evidence or
testimony.
If the hearing is continued and new written evidence is submitted at the continued hearing,
any person may request, prior to the conclusion of the continued hearing, that the record be
left open for at least seven days to submit additional written evidence or testimony to respond
to the new written evidence. If the record is left open rather than continuing the hearing, any
participant may file a written request to reopen the record to respond to new evidence
submitted while the record was left open and the City Council shall grant that request. The
applicant is allowed at least seven days after the record is closed to all other parties, to submit
final written arguments, but not new evidence, in support ofthe application.
6 . If additional documents or evidence are provided by any party, the City Council may allow
any party to the hearing a continuance of the hearing, or leave the record open, to allow the
party a reasonable opportunity to respond.
7. Everyone addressing the City Council is requested to come forward, use the microphone, and
begin by giving your full name and address. We wish to hear from everyone who is interested
in the proposal. We will now proceed with the staffreport.
C:\Mulder's X-Files\Woodburn Files\Other\Opening Statement for City Council Hearing,wpd
McTeather~
Mghf
Ever dream of having your principal or teacher
Prepare dinner for you and your schoolmates?
Now's your chance to assign the HOMEWORK!
Join family and friends on a fieldtrip to your neighborhood
McDonald's and enjoy one of the "Happiest Meals" ever:
Thursday, November 15, 2001
4:30 - 7:30 PM
McDonald's of Woodburn
2910 Newberg Hwy
Woodburn
By 1-5 Freeway
~.
A portion of sales from McTeacher's Night will be donated to your school.
Mcteather~
Night'"
Alguna vez has soiiado que tus maestros 0 la directora de
la escuela te preparan una cena deliciosa a ti y a todos los
niiios de la escuela.
Ahara es tu oportunidad.
Vengan todos, amigos y familiares a comer al McDonalds.
Jamas van a disfrutar de una cena tan feliz como esta.
EI jueves 15 de noviembre del 2001.
De 4:30 a 7:30 P.M.
En el McDonalds de Woodburn
cerca del Freeway 5
2910 Newberg Hwy.
Woodburn, Oregon
By 1-5 Freeway